Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9224/2026 of CHANDAN SAW @ CHANDAN KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 1 October 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9224 of 2026 ------ Chandan Saw @ Chandan Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Rikshi Saw, resident of Purbi Pandarak, P.O. & P.S.-Pandarak, Dist.-Patna (Bihar) … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite
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:29532 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9224 of 2026
------ Chandan Saw @ Chandan Kumar, aged about 40 years, son of Rikshi Saw, resident of Purbi Pandarak, P.O. & P.S.-Pandarak, Dist.-Patna (Bihar) … Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the State
: Mr. P.D. Agrawal, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 01.10.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Jhinkpani P.S. Case No.18 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 20(b) (ii) (c) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that 96.92 kg of Ganja was recovered by police while the co-accused persons were apprehended by police, the petitioner fled away on seeing the police party. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is then submitted that six co-accused persons have been described as unknown 1, in the formal FIR. It is then submitted that co- accused person who faced the trial has since been acquitted. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no.18 of the bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 05.06.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 18 of the bail application. It is next submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the recovery of seized Ganja in commercial quantity; the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material for this Court to be satisfied that there are 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, the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail. It is further submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that since separate denovo trial will take place against the petitioner so the shortcomings, if any, in the trial faced by the co-accused will not be of any help to the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is also the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in the absence of any material for this Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence if admitted to bail as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with evidence if released on bail; this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
01.10.2026 Gunjan-