Prahallad Putty @ Prahlad Putty @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1715 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Prahallad Putty @ Prahlad Putty @ ... vs The State Of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite ... on 10 March, 2026

Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary

                                                                2026:JHHC:6269




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

                       B.A. No. 1299 of 2026

     Prahallad Putty @ Prahlad Putty @ Prahalad Puti, aged about 25
     years, son of Santosh, resident of Village Pathuri Buramara, Bangri,
     P.O. & P.S. Bangri Posi, District Mayurbhanj, State of Orissa
                                                 ...      ...     Petitioner
                              Versus
     The State of Jharkhand                ...       ... Opposite Party
                              ---

CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

---

For the Petitioner : Mr. Devesh Ajmani, Advocate For the Opp. Party-State : Mr. Vishwanath Ray, Spl. P.P.

---

02/10.03.2026

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 17.10.2025 in connection with Special N.D.P.S. Case No. 72 of 2025 arising out of Bahragora P.S. Case No. 73 of 2025, for the alleged offence registered under Sections 20(b) (ii) B, 25 and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act pending in the court of learned Special Judge N.D.P.S., Ghatsila.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been recovery of 5 Kg of Ganja from the joint possession of a number of persons and the petitioner is one of them. Learned counsel submits that the recovery is of intermediary quantity. The charge sheet has been submitted. The learned counsel also submits that out of 14 charge sheeted witnesses, none has been examined so far and charge has been framed on 03.01.2026.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party-State has opposed the prayer and has submitted that summons have been issued for examination of witnesses and the State shall ensure prompt production of witnesses.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is direct allegation against the petitioner

2026:JHHC:6269

regarding recovery of 5 kg of Ganja along with other co-accused, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

6. This bail application is accordingly rejected.

7. However, the State is directed to ensure prompt production of witnesses.

8. Learned counsel for the State is directed to communicate this order to the Director, Prosecution as well as Superintendent of Police of the concerned district.

9. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court concerned through 'FAX/E-mail'.

(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) 10.03.2026 Rakesh/-

Uploaded on:-11.03.2026