Dismissed

Totan Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC5 Oct 2023A.B.A./3409/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal, the High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail alleging involvement in sale of Gaanja. The Court held that given the serious nature of allegations and the large quantity of drugs recovered, custodial interrogation was necessary, making it an unfit case for bail.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected.

Totan Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.3409 of 2023

¶2

------

¶3

Totan Das

¶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 : Mr. Niranjan Kumar, Advocate For the State : Ms. Nehala Sharmin, Spl.P.P. ------

¶10

Order No.05 Dated- 05/10/2023

¶11

Heard the parties.

¶12

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with Tinpahar P.S. Case No.95 of 2020 corresponding to NDPS Case No.09 of 2021 registered under Section 188, 269, 270, 290 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 20B and 22 of NDPS Act and Section 3 of Epidemic Act.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in sale of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance like Gaanja and 9 kg of Gaanja has been recovered from the co-accused persons. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been implicated in this case only on the basis of confessional statement of coaccused persons. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-17 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶14

Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is a habitual supplier of Gaanja and huge quantity of Gaanja has been recovered from the co-accused persons, hence, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the chain of supply of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance like Gaanja. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner 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 above named petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶16

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )

¶17

Animesh/

Totan Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Totan Das 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Danish Mohammad Joheb Siddiqui Alias Danish Mohmmad Joyeb Siddiqui Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Mansoor Alias MD Mansur Ali Alias MD Mansur Ali Taid Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Hafiz Vs the State of Jharkhand

Suaiva Khatoon Alias Shaiba Khatoon Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sanjay Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand