[2026:JHHC:17913] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5599 of 2026 ------ Anurudh Sah @ Anurudh Saw @ Hit Saw, aged about 47 years, son of Late Sriram Sah Vipat Ganjhu, resident of Nehru Colony, P.O.- Sector-12, P.S. Sector-12, District- Bokaro (Jharkhand) .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar, Sr. Advocate Ms. Chandana Kumari, Advocate Mr. Sanuj Oraon, Advocate Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-19-06-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Bokaro Balidih P.S. Case No.284 of 2025 (NDPS Case No.09 of 2025) registered for the offences punishable under Section 20 (B), (ii), (B)/21 (a), 22 (b)/27/29 of the NDPS Act. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the self-same prayer as the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was last rejected on merit vide order dated 24.04.2026 in B.A. No.3423 of 2026. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meanwhile three witnesses have been examined by the trial court and the seized Ganja from the house of the petitioner of 10 Kg 900 gm comes under intermediate quantity. It is next submitted that the petitioner has not been explained the grounds of his arrest nor the same has been mentioned in the arrest memo of the petitioner and in this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Mihir Rajesh Shah vs. State of Maharashtra & Another reported in (2026) 1 SCC 500 paragraph-66.3 and 66.4 of which reads as under:- “66.3. In case(s) where, the arresting officer/person is unable to communicate the grounds of arrest in writing on or soon after arrest, it be so done orally. The said grounds be communicated in writing within a reasonable time and in any case at least two hours prior to production of the arrestee for remand proceedings before the Magistrate. 66.4. In case of non-compliance of the above, the arrest and subsequent remand would be rendered illegal and the person will be at liberty to be set free.” and also the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Dr. Rajinder Rajan vs. Union of India & Another passed in SLP (Crl.) No(s).3326 of 2026 dated 01.04.2026. It is next submitted that the co-accused, with similar allegations, has already been admitted to bail by this Court vide order dated 12.05.2026 passed in B.A. No.4019 of 2026. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes that he will co-operate with the trial of the case and that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 05.10.2025 as has been mentioned in para-05 of the instant bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the facts of this case, the above-named petitioner is directed to be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Bokaro in connection with Bokaro Balidih P.S. Case No.284 of 2025 (NDPS Case No.09 of 2025) with the condition that he will co-operate with the trial of the case, furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card in the court below with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case and will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-19.06.2026-Animesh/