Hajibul Shekh @ Hajibul Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 524 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Hajibul Shekh @ Hajibul Sk vs The State Of Jharkhand .... Opposite ... on 30 January, 2026

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                                                                   2026:JHHC:2388

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                     B. A. No. 11990 of 2025
                                            ....

Hajibul Shekh @ Hajibul Sk., aged about 35 years, Son of Manjur Ali Shekh @ Manjur Sk., Resident of Kankarbona, Panchayat-Jhikarhati East, P.O.-Kakarbona, P.S.- Pakur(M), District-Pakur, Jharkhand .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party ....

              CORAM:           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

              For the Petitioner              : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Adv.
                                              : Mr. Sumit Gautam, Adv.
              For the State                   : Mr. N.K.Ganjhu, A.P.P.
                                              ....
              03/30.01.2026

1. The applicant who is in custody since 17.07.2025 has renewed the prayer for grant of regular bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.4 of 2025 arising out of Pakur (M) Case No.172 of 2025, registered for the offence under Sections 21(a)/ 22(a) of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge cum Special Judge, NDPS Act at Pakur.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part.

3. Earlier the bail application of this applicant was rejected on merit vide order dated 25.09.2025 passed in B.A. No.8490 of 2025. This is the second attempt.

From perusal of the report submitted by the trial court, it appears that out of seven charge sheeted witnesses, three witnesses have been examined. It is a case where the applicant has been apprehended with 13 grams of brown sugar.

4. Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

5. Considering the above facts, I am not inclined to reconsider the prayer for bail of the applicant. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected once again.

6. However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same within six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order.

7. The applicant is at liberty to renew his prayer for bail, if the trial is not concluded within six months.

(Rajesh Kumar, J.) 30.01.2026 Shahid/ Uploaded on 30.01.2026