1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11052 of 2025 ------ Arman Hussain @ Prince, aged about 23 years, Son of Md. Reyasat Ali, Resident of Bablu Marg, Mojahid Nagar, P.S-Hindpiri, P.O-G.P.O, Ranchi, District-Ranchi/Jharkhand ……………Petitioner Versus State of Jharkhand ..............Opposite Party ------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD ------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, Spl.PP Order No.05/ Dated:18th February, 2026 1. The instant bail application under section 483 and 484 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita has been filed seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner, in connection with Kotwali P.S Case No.237/2025 (N) dated 26.09.2025, registered for the offence under Sections 20(b)(ii)(b)/21(b) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and for the offence under Sections 111(2) (b)/111(3)/111(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita pending in the Court of the learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Ranchi. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has falsely been implicated in a case where a small quantity of 5.10 gram of narcotic drugs with the plastic packet, which is much below in the intermediary quantity, has been alleged to be recovered. It has been contended that without following the due procedure, the petitioner has been implicated in the present case. 3. It has been contended that the FSL report of the recovered articles has not been obtained by the prosecution so as to ascertain that whether the recovered alleged articles are narcotic articles or any other articles. 2 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, on the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the present petitioner may be enlarged on bail. 5. While on the other hand, Mr. Prabhu Dayal Agrawal, the learned Spl.PP appearing for the State, however, has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. 6. It has been contended that the petitioner is having four criminal antecedents. It has also been submitted by referring to several paragraphs of the case-diary that in addition to the nature of narcotic drugs which has been found to be recovered from the possession of the petitioner, 5.10 gram Brown Sugar and cash amount of Rs.22,280/- has also been recovered from his possession. 7. The learned State counsel, therefore, has submitted that it is not a case wherein the petitioner, taking into consideration having four criminal antecedents, is to be enlarged on bail, but he has fair enough to accept that FSL report has not been received as yet. 8. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records including the case diary. 9. This Court on consideration of the factual aspect and the nature of allegation as has been alleged against the petitioner even accepting the same to be correct, then also it is admitted by the learned State counsel that FSL report has not yet been received which is necessary to ascertain that the recovered alleged articles are narcotic articles or any other articles. 3 10. It has been submitted that the charge sheet has already been submitted but charge is yet to be framed in the trial and the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.09.2025. 11. Since the FSL report has yet not been received to ascertain that whether the seized/recovered articles are narcotics drugs or not and that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 26.09.2025, this Court is of the view that the instant bail application deserves to be allowed. 12. Accordingly, the instant bail application stands allowed. 13. In consequence thereof, the petitioner, named above, is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge (NDPS), Ranchi in connection with Kotwali P.S Case No.237/2025 (N) dated 26.09.2025, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall co-operate in the trial and shall not absent himself on the date fixed without any cogent cause. In failure, the learned trial court shall have liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law so that trial be not hindered. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Dated:18.02.2026 Sudhir