[2026:JHHC:29752 ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.58 of 2026 ------ Akash Mahto, aged about 20 years, Son of Naresh Mahto, resident of Village-Dorma, P.O. Dorma, P.S.- Torpa District- Khunti. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P. ------ Order No:-05 Dated:-05-10-2026 Heard the parties. The petitioner has been made accused in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 79 of 2025 arising out of Torpa P.S. Case No. 57 of 2025 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 15(c) and 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in sale and purchase of poppy seed and 116.24 kg of poppy powder in four bags was recovered from the petitioner which comes under commercial quantity. It is next submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that though charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner, but neither charges has been framed against the petitioner nor any witnesses have been examined in this case, the F.S.L report is still awaited. It is also submitted that the co- accused person Prasant Sahu has already been admitted to bail vide order dated 09.12.2025 in B.A. No.10645 of 2025. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.08.2025 as mentioned in para-20 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 vehemently opposes the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that the allegation against the co-accused – Prashant Sahu stands on a different footing as nothing was recovered from his possession and in view of recovery of the poppy powder in commercial quantity from the possession of the petitioner, the twin conditions under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act for grant of bail is attracted in this case. It is also submitted that it is a settled principle of law that in matters involving recovery of contraband in commercial quantity, the twin conditions under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are mandatory and no relaxation of the same can be made merely on the ground that accused has undergone prolonged incarceration during the pendency of the trial. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be released on bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in view of the settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Punjab versus Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 671 para-09 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) Wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India reiterated the settled principle of law that the accused person remaining in prolonged incarceration during the trial of the case will not entail any relaxation of the mandatory requirement of the twin conditions as envisaged under Section 37(i)(b)(ii) of the N.D.P.S. Act and as poppy powder which comes under commercial quantity has been recovered in connection with this case; the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. is attracted in this case. Therefore, in 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 while 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:- 05.10.2026 Amar/