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

    0
    33
    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

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here