Dismissed

Jitendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC15 Sept 2026B.A./8615/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application under Sections 439 CrPC and NDPS Act, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the prayer for release. The petitioner was accused of possessing large quantities of poppy straw and husk. The court held that in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, the strict conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act apply. Mere prolonged incarceration did not warrant relaxing these conditions. Due to lack of material proving innocence and risks of absconding, bail was denied.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected at this stage.

Jitendra Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2026)

¶1

[2026:JHHC:27747] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.8615 of 2026

¶2

------

¶3

Jitendra Kumar, aged about 22 years, son of Shri Kalindar Bhuyan, resident of Village Hathindar, P.O. Daihar, P.S. Chauparan, District Hazaribagh (Jharkhand)-825406

¶4

.... .... …. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party

¶7

------

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶9

For the Petitioner : Ms. Sharda Kumari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bishambhar Shastri, Addl.P.P.

¶10

Order No.02 Dated-15-09-2026

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Namkum P.S. Case No.81 of 2026(N) registered under Section 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) of the B.N.S., 2023 and Sections 15(c), 17(b), 18, 22(c), 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in sale and purchase of Poppy Straw and Opium and 566.50 Kg of Poppy Husk which comes under commercial quantity and 700 gm of Opium was recovered from the possession of the petitioner which the petitioner inter alia was supposed to sell to the co-accused persons. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-12 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. It is next submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since

¶14

31.03.2026. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.

¶15

Learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submit 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 vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 671 paragraph-9 of which reads as under:-

¶16

“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)

¶17

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. It is further submitted that the undisputed fact remains that 566.50 Kg of Poppy Straw which comes under commercial quantity, has been recovered in connection with this case, hence, the rigors of Section 37 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 offence alleged and that there is no chance of his being not involved in any offence while on bail, more so because there is every chance of the petitioner absconding

¶18

and tampering with the evidence if released on bail; the petitioner ought not be released on bail.

¶19

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and in view of involvement of Poppy Straw in commercial quantity and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations and that there is no chance of his being not committing any offence while on bail as well as his chance of absconding and tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above-named petitioner be released on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected at this stage.

¶21

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶22

Dated-15.09.2026-Animesh/

Jitendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jitendra Kumar v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases