( 2026:JHHC:25521 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 2955 of 2026 ------ Abhinash Kumar Mishra @ Avinash Kumar Mishra, aged about 21 years, son of Subodh Kumar Mishra, resident of 779/Y10C, Purushottam Bhawan, Near Global Convent High School, Hanuman Mandir, Hehal, Ranchi, P.O. –Hehal, P.S. – Sukhdeo Nagar, District –Ranchi, State –Jharkhand, PIN Code -834005. … 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. Prabhat Kr. Singh, Advocate : Mr. Atul Gera, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. ------ Order No.06 Dated- 24.08.2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No.65 of 2026(N) registered for the offences punishable under sections 22(c)/27(a)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner along with the co-accused person –Kumar Abhishek was in illegal possession of Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (LSD) weighing 1.74 gram which comes under commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the seizure has been made from the co-accused –Kumar Abhishek and the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of the confessional statement of the co-accused – Kumar Abhishek in which he disclosed that he along with this petitioner purchased the seized Narcotic Contraband through Dark Web Courier. Drawing attention of this Court to 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 it is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that para -66 to 66.4 of the said judgement was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in para -13 of its Order passed in the case of Dr. Rajinder Rajan Vs. Union of India and Another, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 802, which reads as under:- “13. In particular, learned senior counsel relied upon the following conclusions recorded in Mihir Rajesh Shah:— “66. In conclusion, it is held that: 66.1. The constitutional mandate of informing the arrestee the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all offences under all statutes including offences under Penal Code, 1860 (now BNS 2023); 66.2. The grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language he/she understands; 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 in that case as the grounds of arrest was not supplied to the accused persons, the appellant before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was to admitted bail. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner next relies upon the Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Meghalaya Vs. Sonam Raghuvanshi @ Bitti @ Bittu, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 1392, para -11 of which reads as under:- “11. We find that the respondent is not entitled for bail, both on merits and on the grounds discussed by both the Courts. There is a fundamental difference between non-service of grounds of arrest and non-furnishing of adequate reasons thereunder. While the first category might vitiate the arrest, in the second category, one has to see the prejudice caused to the accused. In the facts of the instant case, it is not as if the respondent was not served with the grounds of arrest. Hence, the case of the respondent falls within the second category discussed above. The respondent has also not taken the said plea at the earliest point of time, having done so only in her 4th Bail Application before the trial court.” (Emphasis supplied) And submits that therein also the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has made the distinction between non-service of grounds of arrest and non-furnishing of adequate reasons thereunder. It is then submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of the Court to page no.23 of the supplementary affidavit dated 17.08.2026 that the same is the memo of arrest and nowhere the ground of arrest has been mentioned therein. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 26.02.2026, as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 16 of the bail application. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and further undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. The learned Spl. P.P. opposes the prayer for bail. Considering the submissions of the counsels and the fact as discussed above, I am inclined to enlarge the above-named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Special Judge, NDPS, Ranchi in connection with Sukhdeo Nagar P.S. Case No.65 of 2026(N) with the condition that the petitioner will co-operate with the trial of the case and will furnish his mobile number and photocopy of the Aadhar Card with an undertaking that he will not change his mobile number during the trial of the case, with further condition that he will not annoy or disturb the witnesses of the case in any manner during the trial of the case. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 24.08.2026 Sonu/