Advertisement
Advertisement

― Advertisement ―

HomeSandeep Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ..... ... ... on 17...

Sandeep Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ….. … … on 17 March, 2026

ADVERTISEMENT

Jharkhand High Court

Sandeep Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand ….. … … on 17 March, 2026

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

                        ( 2026:JHHC:7173 )




IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
               A. B. A. No. 910 of 2026

       Sandeep Kumar, aged about 42 years, son of Rakesh Kumar, resident of
       House No. 826, Andhe Vaid Wali Gali, Indra Nagar P.O. and Police Station-
       Brahmpuri (Chowki Gauriganj), District-Meerut, State-Uttar Pradesh
                                                     ...... ...      Petitioner
                            Versus
The State of Jharkhand                              .....      ...     Opposite Party
                         --------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner :Mr. Chanchal Jain, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.P.P

06/ 17.03.2026: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

SPONSORED

for the State.

2. The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with CID P.S.

Case No. 12 of 2024, registered under sections 414, 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 469,

471 of I.P.C. and 63 of Copy Right Act and 8 (C)/21(C) of Bihar Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substance Rules, 1985, pending in the Court of learned Additional

Judicial Commissioner-XVIII, Ranchi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in this case. By way of placing F.I.R, he submits that even in

the F.I.R allegations are there against one Umesh Kumar and Upendra Singh who

have kept Codeine Phosphate containing 200 mg each in 100 ml phensedyl cough

syrup in 24560 of bottles. He next submits that in the said godown the petitioner

has kept wheat and rice. On these grounds, he submits that the petitioner may

kindly be provided privilege of anticipatory bail.

4. Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer and submits that

the petitioner was the accomplice of Umesh Kumar and Upendra Singh. The

quantity of Codeine Phosphate containing 200 mg in 100 ml phensedyl cough syrup

in 24560 of bottles is commercial quantity in the light of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substance Act and in view of that the anticipatory bail of the petitioner

may kindly be rejected.

5. In the F.I.R, it is alleged that Codeine Phosphate containing 200 mg

in a 100 ml phensedyl cough syrup in 24560 of bottles was recovered from the
( 2026:JHHC:7173 )

godown that is commercial quantity. The godown owner has taken the name of

petitioner.

6. In course of argument it has been pointed out by the learned counsel

for the petitioner that part of the articles have been kept by the petitioner in the

said said godwon.

7. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined

to grant anticipatory bail application to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayer for

anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.

Dt.17.03.2026                                         ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
satyarthi-
 



Source link