This oral order rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a drug seizure case. The High Court held that the petitioner lacked a prima facie case of non-involvement given evidence against him, contravening the preventive mandate of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Rejection of the application for anticipatory bail.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 3305 of 2022
------
Badal Vishwakarma .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. A.P.P.
Oral Order 05/ Dated :12.08.2022
The anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of petitioner, who is apprehending his arrest in connection with Bashistha Nagar P.S. Case No. 06 of 2018 corresponding to G.R. No.82 of 2018 (N.D.P.S. Case No.24 of 2018) for the offence registered under Section 15 (C) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Chatra, is pressed into motion.
It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner that he has no concern with the truck from which 1610 Kg. Doda kept in 70 bags are said to have been seized by the police and he is neither the owner nor the driver and his name will not come. There is no legal evidence against him except confessional statement of the owner and driver. It is further submitted that in view of the ratio decide in the case of Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2021) 4 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Apex Court, the confessional statement cannot be used against co-accused.
Learned A.P.P. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. It is submitted that there is specific mandate under Section 37 of N.D.P.S. Act which provides that only under two circumstances, anticipatory bail can be granted. The first and foremost of it being that there exist some reasonable ground that the petitioneraccused was not involved in the offence. The matter involves seizure of huge quantity of narcotics and the name of this petitioner has come-up in the confessional statement and on the point of law and the matter is still under investigation. Reliance has been placed on The State Haryana Versus Samarth Kumar reported 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622 wherein it has been held that anticipatory bail in a case of this case nature is not really warranted.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find this case fit to grant anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is hereby, rejected.
Petitioner is directed to surrender before the Court below within two weeks.
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Anit
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is warranted in a case involving seizure of huge quantity of narcotics where the petitioner is named in a confessional statement of the owner and driver.
Whether the ratio in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu that a confessional statement cannot be used against a co-accused applies to grant anticipatory bail in this case.
Whether the conditions under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act for granting anticipatory bail are met in the present facts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tofan Singh Versus State of Tamil NaduReferred¶8
(2021) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
The State Haryana Versus Samarth KumarReferred¶9
2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Badal Vishwakarma
The State of Jharkhand
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
