( 2026:JHHC:4132 )

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No. 11974 of 2025 ------

Vijay Kumar, aged about 40 years, s/o late Jagarnath Saw, r/o Village-Lamta, P.O. & P.S.-Lawalong, Dist.-Chatra … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Ayush Kr. Verma, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P.

------

Order No.04 Dated- 13.02.2026 Heard the parties.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Chauparan P.S. Case No.380 of 2024 (N.D.P.S. Case No. 5 of 2025) registered for the offences punishable under sections 17(c)/18(b)/21(c)/22(c)/23(c)/29 of N.D.P.S. Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is the second journey of the petitioner with the prayer for regular bail and earlier the prayer for regular bail was rejected vide order dated 09.05.2025 in B.A. No. 3809 of 2025. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ankur Chaudhary vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2730 that in that case, it has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that failure to conclude the trial within a reasonable time resulting in prolonged incarceration militates against the precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and as such, conditional liberty overriding the statutory embargo created under Section 37 (1) (b) of the N.D.P.S. Act may, in such circumstances, be considered. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Miku Kumar Yadav @ Mikku Kumar Yadav vs. The State of Jharkhand vide order dated 07.04.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).148 of 2025 that considering the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the entire facts and circumstances of this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India directed the petitioner to be released on bail. It is further submitted that the sole witness examined during the trial so far in paragraph no.21 of his deposition has stated that samples were not sealed at the place of occurrence. It is next submitted that inordinate delay is going on in completion of the trial. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in this case since the opium recovered was in commercial quantity being 48.184 kg. from the vehicle of the petitioner; the rigor of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to be satisfied that there is reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not be admitted to bail.

Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Supdt. Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai vs. R. Paulsamy reported in 2001 Cr.L.J. 117 (S.C.) has held that a finding in terms of Section 37 of N.D.P.S. is a sine qua non for granting bail to the accused involved in the offence under the Act.

In view of the categorical pronouncement of the law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Supdt. Narcotics Control Bureau, Chennai vs. R. Paulsamy (supra), as there is no material in the record to suggest that there is any reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail and as the sole witness examined during the trial has supported the case of the prosecution including recovery of opium in commercial quantity from the vehicle solely in the possession of the petitioner, this Court i