Jharkhand High Court
B.A./9148/2026 of PREMJEET SINGH @ PARIMA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 30 September 2026
) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 9148 of 2026 ------ Premjeet Singh @ Parima, aged about 44 years, son of Jagdev Singh, resident of Village –Sakrej, P.O. –Jhurjhuri, P.S. – Barkatha, District –Hazaribagh. … Petitioner Versus The State of
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:29487 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 9148 of 2026
------ Premjeet Singh @ Parima, aged about 44 years, son of Jagdev Singh, resident of Village –Sakrej, P.O. –Jhurjhuri, P.S. – Barkatha, District –Hazaribagh.
… Petitioner
Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Pratik Sen, Advocate For the State
: Mr. Ruby Pandey, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 30.09.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Ramgarh P.S. Case No.334 of 2024 corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 07 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under sections 281, 324(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 and under Section 15(c)/25 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier the prayer of the bail of the petitioner was rejected twice vide order dated 05.01.2026 and 12.06.2026 in B.A. Nos. 8464 of 2025 and 5183 of 2026. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that the petitioner has been in custody for some more time. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the involvement of the petitioner in transportation and sale of 543.055 Kg of poppy straw which comes under commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act is attracted in this case. It is then submitted that, in the absence of any material to suggest that there are reasonable grounds to believe 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.
Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being involved in transportation and sale of 543.055 Kg of poppy straw which comes under commercial quantity and in the absence of any material 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, this Court is not inclined to admit the petitioner on bail at this stage; merely because the petitioner has remained in custody or some more time, after rejection of his earlier bail application.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
30.09.2026
Sonu/