[2026:JHHC:27851] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8099 of 2026 ------ Baj Singh, age about 30 years, son of Late Major Singh, Resident of village Pakhopur, P.O. & P.S.- Chohla Sahib, District- Tarantaran, Punjab .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Naveen Kr. Gaunjhu, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated-15-09-2026 Heard the parties. The record is put up today along with the explanation submitted by Shri Avinash Kumar Dubey who was the then Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge (CAW), Hazaribagh. Perusal of the record reveals that though the petitioner was in custody on the date of examination of the P.W.-1 namely Sanjay Ram instead of the P.W.-1 being asked question as to whether he can identify the petitioner who was present in the court at the time of his examination through video conference from the jail; erroneously, it has been mentioned in the deposition of the P.W.-1; that the P.W.-1 can identify the accused who was represented through his advocate on that date. It appears from the explanation submitted by the then Additional Sessions Judge-VI-cum-Special Judge (NDPS cases), Hazaribagh that he has since been transferred and posted as Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh. It is not clear as to in whose court the said N.D.P.S. Case No.31 of 2025 is pending at present. The learned Principal District Judge, Hazaribagh is directed to intimate the court concerned being Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act Cases in which N.D.P.S. Case No.31 of 2025 is pending, to recall the P.W.-1 and to put questions to him in the matter of identification of the petitioner by the P.W.-1; at the earliest. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.31 of 2025 arising out of Chauparan P.S. Case No.98 of 2025 registered under Sections 8 and 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the self- same prayer for regular bail as earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected on merit by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.11.2025 passed in B.A. No.9781 of 2025. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the fresh ground is that the P.W.-1 has been examined in this case and he has supported the case of the prosecution. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 30.03.2025. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 671 paragraph-9 of which reads as under:- “9. It is well settled that in matters involving recovery of contraband in commercial quantity, the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act are mandatory and entail no relaxation merely on the ground that the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration during the pendency of trial. The provision casts upon the court a duty to record, before enlarging an accused on bail, its satisfaction on two cumulative conditions, first, that there exist reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offence charged; and second, that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The recording of such satisfaction is not a mere formality but a mandatory precondition, the non-observance of which vitiates the grant of bail. This Court, in Kashif [Narcotics Control Bureau v. Kashif, (2024) 11 SCC 372 : (2025) 3 SCC (Cri) 377] , has held in no uncertain terms that the recording of satisfaction on the twin conditions under Section 37 is mandatory and not merely directory, and that an order granting bail without such recorded satisfaction stands vitiated and cannot be sustained. The same view stands reiterated in Lalrintluanga Sailo [State of Meghalaya v. Lalrintluanga Sailo, (2024) 15 SCC 36 : (2026) 1 SCC (Cri) N-23] .” (Emphasis supplied) that remaining in prolonged incarceration for some period of time will not entail relaxation of the mandatory requirement of the twin conditions as has been envisaged under Section 37 (1) (b) (ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is further submitted that since 278.050 Kg of Poppy Straw which comes under commercial quantity, has been recovered from the truck driven by the petitioner, hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged and that there is no chance of his being not involved in any offence while on bail, more so because there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence if released on bail; the petitioner ought not be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in view of involvement of Poppy Straw in commercial quantity and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations and that there is no chance of his being not committing any offence while on bail as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated-15.09.2026-Animesh/