( 2026:JHHC:28525 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.4069 of 2026 ------ Bhudev Munda, aged about 34 years, Sex-Male, S/o-Late Mahendra Munda, R/o Village-Tamar, P.O.+P.S.-Bundu, Dist.-Ranchi, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Aman Kr. Rahul, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kr Mishra, Addl.P.P ------ Order No.05 Dated- 21-09-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Maranghada P.S. Case No.18 of 2024 corresponding to NDPS Case No.42 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 15(c)/22/25 of the NDPS Act. This is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail, earlier the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 19.09.2024 in B.A. No.8222 of 2024. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.653 of 2025 dated 31.01.2025 challenging the said order, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dismissed the said Special Leave Petition, but observed that the petitioner would be entitled to renew his request after he undergoes incarceration for one more year. It is next submitted that so far 01 witness has been examined by the prosecution and he has supported the case of the prosecution, but the petitioner has not brought on record the deposition of the witness. It is then submitted that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has observed that the petitioner is entitled to renew his request after he undergoes incarceration for one more year. It is further submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial of the case and also undertakes that he will not annoy or disturb the informant/victim or 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 18.05.2024 as has been mentioned in para-01 of this bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail. Learned Addl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was involved in transportation of 552.6 kg of Poppy Straw which comes under commercial quantity; the rigors of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) 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 offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not be released on bail. It is next submitted that there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail. It is further submitted that mere ground is that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for considerable period of time will not be a ground to relax the condition envisages under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act, hence, it is lastly submitted that the prayer of the petitioner for bail, be rejected. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here 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 v. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora reported in (2026) 7 SCC 513, 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 pre- condition, the non-observance of which vitiates the grant of bail. This Court, in Kashif (supra), 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 (supra).”(Emphasis supplied) that the conditions for bail as has been envisaged in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act cannot be relaxed merely because the accused has undergone prolonged incarceration and in view of the direct allegation against the petitioner of being involved in transporting poppy straw in commercial quantity; which is supported by the witness who is examined during the trial, as submitted by the learned Addl.P.P., though the same has not been brought on record by the petitioner and the chance of his absconding and tampering with evidence, as also in the absence of any material for this Court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences and that he is not likely to commit any offence, while on bail; this Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) 21/09/2026 Abhiraj/