Deva Nishad vs State of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over. In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Barhi P.S. Case No.294 of 2020 registered under sections 18 (b)/22-29 of NDPS Act.

The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in illegal business of opium and police seized 21 kg of poppy straw from the house of the petitioner which is more than small quantity. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner has no concern from the said house or the lady from whom the alleged poppy straw was recovered. It is then submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that since the seized poppy straw is in huge quantity and the petitioner is also wanted by Haryana Police in Sahbad P.S. Case No.421 of 2020, therefore, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the chain of supply of narcotic drugs. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and his criminal antecedent as well as 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 privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.