Dismissed

Pappu Kumar Sah v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Jun 2019A.B.A./3835/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in an N.D.P.S. case alleging the transportation of ganja. The court held that due to the serious nature of the allegations and the need for custodial interrogation, it was not a fit case for anticipatory bail. The petitioner was given permission to surrender within four weeks for regular bail consideration.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for the grant of privilege of anticipatory bail was rejected. Permission was given for the petitioner to surrender within four weeks and approach the court below for regular bail.

Pappu Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 3835 of 2019

¶3

Papu Kumar Sah … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶4

------

¶5

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶6

------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Aashish Kumar, Advocate For the State : Addl. P.P. ------

¶7

Order No.02 Dated- 19.06.2019

¶8

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Pathargama P.S. Case No.53 of 2019 subsequently N.D.P.S. Case No. 02 of 2019 registered under sections 20 of the N.D.P.S. Act.

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. P.P. for the State.

¶10

The learned Addl. P.P. files a counter affidavit. Keep the same in the record.

¶11

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner approached the co-accused –Yashwant Kumar Yadav who being the son of the owner of the TATA Sumo Victa Vehicle was looking after the vehicle and the said vehicle was hired by the petitioner along with the co-accused persons for transporting Ganja and the said vehicle was driven by the co-accused Dharmendra while the petitioner was also occupying the said vehicle which was seized by the police while transporting Ganja and 19 Kg. of Ganja was recovered from the said vehicle and the allegation against the petitioner is that on seeing the police party both Dharmendra and the petitioner as well as the co-accused person escorting the said vehicle carrying Ganja fled away from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner are false and the alleged seized Ganja is less than commercial quantity. It is lastly submitted that one of the co-accused has been granted regular bail. Hence, it is

¶12

submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶13

Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that considering the huge quantity of Ganja recovered, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is highly essential during the investigation of the case to unearth the source of Ganja. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Considering the serious nature of allegation of seizure of huge quantity of Ganja with which the petitioner is associated and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected.

¶15

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner will surrender before the court below within four weeks from today.

¶16

In case, the petitioner surrenders within a period of four weeks from the date of this order and prays for regular bail, his prayer for regular bail will be considered by the court below concerned without being prejudiced by this order.

¶17

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶18

Sonu/Gunjan-

Pappu Kumar Sah v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pappu Kumar Sah 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pawan Jaiswal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Indra Bhushan Prasad Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vivek Kumar Bansal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Zakir Sk Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Kumar Bhagat Alias Sonu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shubham Gope Alias Shubham Kumar Yadav Alias Shubham Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand