Jharkhand High Court
B.A./8169/2026 of PINTU KUMAR Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 25 September 2026
Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:28917 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 8169 of 2026 Pintu Kumar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State
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.
Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:28917 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 8169 of 2026
Pintu Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand
… Opposite Party
---
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate For the State
: Spl.P.P.
---
02/25.09.2026
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
The prayer for bail of the petitioner was earlier rejected in B.A. No. 10735 of 2025.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an intermediary quantity of brown sugar like substance was recovered from the vehicle in which the petitioner was travelling. It has further been submitted that though charge has been framed on 13.02.2026 but no witness has been examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel adds that the petitioner is in custody since 10.05.2025 and the charge-sheet has been submitted without there being any FSL report on record.
Learned Spl.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the petitioner.
It appears that the petitioner has several criminal antecedents under the NDPS Act and despite the recovery of an intermediary quantity of brown sugar, the antecedent of the petitioner was one of the reasons for rejection of the prayer for bail of the petitioner on the earlier occasion.
There being no fresh grounds to reconsider the prayer for bail of the petitioner, the same stands rejected once again at this stage.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) 25.09.2026 S.B. Uploaded on 28.09.2026