[2026:JHHC:28817] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.5345 of 2026 ------ 1. Sagar Mundu @ Simon Mundu, Son of Mangara Mundu, aged about 74 years, resident of Village- Tinda, P.O. & P.S- Bandgaon, District- West Singhbhum (Jharkhand)-835216. 2. Joseph Chutiya Purty, son of Paulus Chutiya Purty, aged about 28 years, resident of Village- Chirkubera, P.O. & P.S. Bandgaon, District- West Singhbhum (Jharkhand)-835216. .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Peter Martin T.J., Advocate For the State : Mr. Abhay Kr. Pathak, Addl.P.P. ------ Order No:-02 Dated:-24-09-2026 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioners has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Bandgaon P.S. Case No. 10 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(b) & 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegation against the petitioners was cultivating opium over three acres of land. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioners is all false. It is further submitted that the three of the accused persons have been given privilege of anticipatory bail. It is also submitted that the petitioners do not know was has taken their names to be indulging in cultivation of opium over three acres of land. It is then submitted that the petitioners undertake to furnish sufficient security and also undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case and further undertakes that they will not annoy or disturb the informant or any of his family members in any manner during the pendency of the case. Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that the undisputed fact remains is that opium cultivation was going on over three acres of land which involves opium in commercial quantity. It is next submitted that the undisputed facts remain is that the petitioners are named accused persons of this case and the place of occurrence land is near their house. It is further submitted that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is required during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the case. Hence, the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioners of indulging in cultivation of opium over an area of three acres in an organized manner and the requirement of their custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case. This Court is of the considered view that this not a fit case where the petitioners be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioners is hereby rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:- 24.09.2026 Amar/