This order rejects the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in an NDPS case involving the transport of psychotropic substances. The Single Bench deemed the circumstances, including the commercial quantity and the petitioner's criminal antecedent, sufficient to deny the relief.
The prayer for anticipatory bail was rejected.
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.4106 of 2022
------
Md. Sirajul Ansari .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
-----For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Choudhary, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P ------
Order No.07 Dated- 19.10.2022
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Apprehending his arrest in connection with Dumka(T) P.S. Case No. 88 of 2021 NDPS Case No.01 of 2022 instituted under Sections 420, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21-C of NDPS Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.
As per FIR, allegation is that the petitioner was transporting 3600 bottles of Onerex and 1800 bottles of Dialex containing psychotropic substances namely Codein through the co-accused persons but the same was seized by the police. It is further alleged that during search, mobile number of consignee, M/s Suman vide consignment number 56622, was given 8409766634 which belongs to present petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. Petitioner has no concern with the seized narcotic drugs and there is no whisper in the FIR showing the name of consigner from where the said material has purportedly been delivered to the petitioner. Petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.
Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that the prayer for anticipatory bail of co-accused has already been rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2022 passed in A.B.A. No.10195 of 2021 the case of present petitioner stands on similar footing. It is further submitted that the seized contraband substances comes under commercial quantity and petitioner is a consignee having one criminal antecedent of similar type of offence. Hence, petitioner may not be extended privilege of anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, as stated above, commercial quantity of seized contraband substances and prima facie involvement of present petitioner in this case and the criminal antecedent of petitioner, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Pappu/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of transporting psychotropic substances.
Whether the petitioner's criminal antecedent and the commercial quantity of seized drugs preclude the grant of anticipatory bail.
Md. Sirajul Ansari
The State of Jharkhand
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
