B.A./9329/2026 of RAJI ANSARI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 October 2026

[2026:JHHC:29924] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

B.A. No.9329 of 2026

------ Raji Ansari, aged about 31 years, son of Late Sagir Ansari, resident of Hanuman Mandir Road, Dahijora, P.O. + P.S. Ghatshila, District East Singhbhum, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

.... .... .... Opposite Party

------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Prathik, Advocate

For the State

: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P

------

Order No.02 Dated:-06-10-2026

Heard the parties.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 63 of 2024 arising out of Bahragora P.S. Case No. 68 of 2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 13.01.2025 passed in B.A. No. 71 of 2025 and subsequently, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was also dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 30.06.2026 passed in B.A. No. 5798 of 2026.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in transportation of Ganja and 51.170 Kg of Ganja was recovered from the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. It is next submitted that the fresh ground is that in the meanwhile, three witnesses have been examined in this case and they have supported the case of the prosecution. It is then submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is also submitted that the co-accused who faced the trial separately, has already been acquitted vide the judgment dated 28.07.2026 passed in N.D.P.S. Case No. 09 of 2024. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 25.07.2024 as mentioned in para-09 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that in view of the seizure of ganja in commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material for this Court to be satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence, while on bail and also keeping in view the fact that the three witnesses so far examined in this case, have supported the case of the prosecution, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in the absence of any reasonable ground for this Court for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-06.10.2026 Saroj/