Jharkhand High Court
Sudama Mehta @ Sudama Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand … Opposite … on 6 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
( 2026:JHHC:19654 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No. 3514 of 2026
1. Sudama Mehta @ Sudama Kumar, aged about 27 years, son of Naresh
Mehta
2. Aman Kumar, aged about 20 years, son of Dilip Prasad @ Dilip Prasad
Mehta,
Both residents of Village- Dumraun, P.O. & P.S. Ichak, Dist. Hazaribag
... Petitioners
-Versus-
The State of Jharkhand ... Opposite Party
-----
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
—–
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Spl.P.P.
-----
05/06.07.2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned
counsel appearing for the State.
2. The petitioners are apprehending their arrest in connection with Ichak
P.S. Case No.56 of 2026, registered for the offence under Sections 21(a),
21(b), 22(a), 22(b), 27(a), 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the Court of the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act,
Hazaribag.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that
the names of the petitioners have come on confessional statement. He then
submits that the allegations are made against the petitioners that they have
supplied brown sugar to the apprehended co-accused. On these grounds, he
submits that anticipatory bail may kindly be granted to the petitioners.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the prayer and
submits that the petitioners are supplier of the said brown sugar and the
petitioners are having criminal antecedent of similar nature. On these grounds,
-1- A.B.A. No. 3514 of 2026
( 2026:JHHC:19654 )
he submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners may kindly
be rejected.
5. There are parameters of granting regular bail or anticipatory bail in the
cases arising out of N.D.P.S. Act. The petitioners are having criminal
antecedent of similar nature. There is direct allegation against the petitioners
of supplying brown sugar to the apprehended co-accused from whose
possession the brown sugar in question has been recovered.
6. In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined
to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioners and, as such,
their prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected.
7. Accordingly, this application is dismissed.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Dated: 6th July, 2026
Ajay/
-2- A.B.A. No. 3514 of 2026
