[2026:JHHC:30012] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5400 of 2026 ------ Md. Tufan Rain @ Tufan Rain, aged about 20 years, S/o Yesh Mohmmad Rayen @ AS Mohmmad Rain, R/o- Village Japla Datta Nagar Road, P.O. & P.S. – Hussainabad, District – Palamau, State – Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.04 Dated:-06-10-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No. 43 of 2025 corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No. 23 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 21(c), 22(c), 25, 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. This is the third journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail. Earlier, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 09.10.2025 passed in B.A. No. 7427 of 2025 and subsequently, the prayer for regular bail of the petitioner was also dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 25.03.2026 passed in B.A. No. 2418 of 2026. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was transporting 710.56 grams of brown sugar which is also known as Heroin which comes under commercial quantity. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the co-accused Manish Kumar has been granted bail without recording any satisfaction as envisaged under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. It is also submitted that in the case of Sanjay Badaya vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2026 INSC 1065, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India granted bail to the appellant of that case. It is further submitted that so far one witness has been examined in this case who has stated about the petitioner that the petitioner was caught while transporting 710.56 grams of brown sugar and he has identified the petitioner in the court and in para-7 of his cross-examination, he has stated that no contraband was seized from the wearing apparel or the body of the petitioner. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.03.2025 as mentioned in para-26 of the instant bail application. It is then submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-25 of the instant bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co-operate with the trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail. Learned counsel appearing for the State on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the recovery of the brown sugar in commercial quantity, the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act is attracted in this case and keeping in view the evidence that has already come against the petitioner through the witness i.e. PW-1, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the settled principle of law as has been reiterated 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) Wherein it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that remaining in prolonged incarceration during the trial of the case will not entail any 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 and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sagar vs. State of U.P. & Another reported in 2025 INSC 1370, in para-14 of which, it has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is the correct position of law that the parity is not the sole ground on which bail can be granted and keeping in view that the co-accused has been granted bail without following the mandatory requirement of recording satisfaction in terms of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act and keeping in view the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in the absence of any reasonable ground for this Court for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence, if released on bail as well as the chance of his absconding and tampering with the evidence, if released on bail, this Court is not inclined to admit the above named petitioner on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Dated:-06.10.2026 Saroj/