Jharkhand High Court
Yash Raj Singh @ Yash @ Ankit Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 24 March, 2026
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2026:JHHC:8193 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
B.A. No. 2351 of 2026
------
Yash Raj Singh @ Yash @ Ankit Singh, aged about 33 years,
son Balraj Singh, resident of Guru Gobind Singh Public
School Campus, Matkuria Road, Bank More, P.O.-Dhanbad,
P.S.-Dhanbad, Dist.-Dhanbad, Jharkhand
… Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
——
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
——
For the Petitioner : Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate
For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P.
------
Order No.02 Dated- 24.03.2026
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in
connection with Jariyagarh P.S. Case No.21 of 2023 (NDPS Case No.
40(B) of 2023) registered for the offences punishable under sections
279/337/338 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 134/184/187 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and under Section 20 (b) (ii) (c) of N.D.P.S.
Act, 1985.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation
against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in
transportation of 106.760 kg of ganja in a car and on seeing the police
party, the driver of the car fled away along with his associates but in
course of the same, one of them fell down in a ditch and sustained
injury and he was apprehended and upon being interrogated, he
disclosed that he was driving the car. It is further alleged that the
apprehended person disclosed that ganja (cannabis) was loaded in the
car and upon search of the car, 76 packets of ganja was recovered
being 106.760 kg of ganja and the petitioner is said to be one of the
persons who was in the car and was involved in transporting the said
seized ganja. It is further submitted that the allegations against the
petitioner are all false and apart from this case, the petitioner is also
involved in another case. It is then submitted that the petitioner has
been in custody since 20.11.2025, as has been mentioned in paragraph
no. 01 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that the co-accused
person has already been admitted to bail by a coordinate Bench of
this Court vide order dated 10.02.2025 in B.A. No.1085 of 2025
without recording any finding in terms of Section 37 of Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the offence
and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. Hence, it
is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the
prayer for bail and submits that since this case involves ganja in
commercial quantity so, the rigor of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is attracted in this case and in
the absence of any material to suggest 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; more so
because the petitioner is having one criminal antecedent; the
petitioner ought not be admitted to bail. It is further submitted by
learned Spl. P.P. that there is every 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 that the offence involves transportation of ganja in
commercial quantity and in the absence of any material to suggest
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, as also the criminal antecedent of the petitioner
as well as the chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with
evidence if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that
this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be admitted to
bail at this stage. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the abovenamed
petitioner is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
24.03.2026
Gunjan-
