him with the alleged recovery and seizure of contraband liquor but has been shown as an accused and chargesheeted under Annexure-2 which is again on the strength of a confessional statement of coaccused, who was nabbed at the spot by the raiding party. Mr. Tripathy refers to the contents of the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 in order to satisfy the Court that there is no material at all to show involvement of the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. It is claimed that neither the vehicle in which the contraband substance was shown to have been transported belongs to the petitioner nor the local police did ever raid any establishment or place where the contraband liquor was supposed to have been stored and under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have been chargesheeted and in the meantime, the learned court below has issued NBWA against him which is not tenable in law. So according to Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, the charges against the petitioner cannot be sustained in law and if in case, the Court is not inclined to quash the impugned order, then in that case, the petitioner should at least be directed to surrender and released on bail with any conditions as he does not have any criminal antecedent. In response to the above, Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the State strongly objects to the contention of Mr. Tripathy and submits that the petitioner has been chargesheeted and local police was looking for him and also contemplated his arrest but he avoided and absconded and since involvement is clearly revealed from the chargesheet and disclosure made by the other accused, who was caught red handed at the spot, hence, no case is made out for interference and quashing of the impugned order (Annexure-3).
