BIRENDRA GANJHU vs STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRIYA SHRESTHA (A.C) — A.B.A./2309/2026
Case under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita Section 18,27,(a),28,29,30,NDPS,ACT,33,IF,ACT. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 08th May 2026.
CNR: JHHC010127472026
Filing Number
A.B.A./8253/2026
Filing Date
16-Apr-2026
Registration No
A.B.A./2309/2026
Registration Date
27-Apr-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench Type
Single Bench
Category
DRUGS & MEDICINES ( 125 )
Sub-Category
Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 ( 5 )
Judicial Branch
Criminal Section
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--Allowed
Last updated 04-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.BIRENDRA GANJHU
Adv. ABHAY KR CHATURVEDY,RAJESH KR SINGH,RAJESH KR SINGH, ,ASHISH KUMAR SINHA,HADISH ANSARI,RAJESH KR SINGH
-
2.CHAMARI GANJHU
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF JHARKHAND Advocate - PRIYA SHRESTHA (A.C)
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar DwivediView PDF
Case Summary: A.B.A. No. 2309/2026 The Jharkhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners Birendra Ganjhu and Chamari Ganjhu, who faced arrest in a poppy cultivation case registered under NDPS Act and Indian Forest Act. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi found that the informant's identity was not disclosed in the FIR, the allegedly cultivated land belonged to the Forest Department (not the petitioners), and co-accused had been similarly granted bail, warranting extension of the same privilege. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
08-May-2026
Fresh Filing (Admission)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
-
16-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. A.B.A./2309/2026
Case Summary: A.B.A. No. 2309/2026 The Jharkhand High Court granted anticipatory bail to petitioners Birendra Ganjhu and Chamari Ganjhu, who faced arrest in a poppy cultivation case registered under NDPS Act and Indian Forest Act. Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi found that the informant's identity was not disclosed in the FIR, the allegedly cultivated land belonged to the Forest Department (not the petitioners), and co-accused had been similarly granted bail, warranting extension of the same privilege. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts