Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9284/2026 of ARPANA MANDAL @ APARNA MANDAL Vs STATE OF JHARKHAND on 5 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.9284 of 2026 ------ Arpana Mandal @ Aparna Mandal, aged about 25 years, Wife of Abhishek Kumar Sao, Resident of 03 No., Bandul Taratala Road, Brace Bridge, P.O. Jhinjhira, P.S. Brace Bridge, District South 24 Pargana, Kolkata (West Bengal) .... ....
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
[2026:JHHC:29739] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No.9284 of 2026
------ Arpana Mandal @ Aparna Mandal, aged about 25 years, Wife of Abhishek Kumar Sao, Resident of 03 No., Bandul Taratala Road, Brace Bridge, P.O. Jhinjhira, P.S. Brace Bridge, District South 24 Pargana, Kolkata (West Bengal) .... .... …. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
.... .... .... Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate
For the State
: Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P
------
Order No.06 Dated:-05-10-2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Jaldega (Bansjor O.P) P.S. Case No. 27 of 2026 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in transportation and sale of Ganja and 27.988 Kg of Ganja was seized from the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling with her husband. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner is a seven month- pregnant lady and she needs extra-care. It is also submitted that charge sheet has already been submitted in this case but no witness has been examined as yet. It is further submitted that no lady officer was there at the time of arrest of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.04.2026 as mentioned in para-18 of the instant bail application. It is also submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-18 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 keeping in view the recovery of the 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 she is not likely to commit any offence, while on bail; the petitioner is not entitled to bail. It is next submitted that 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 she is not likely to commit any offence while on bail as well as the chance of her 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:-05.10.2026 Saroj/