Jairam Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand Through Ncb
2021 Latest Caselaw 3637 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                    A.B.A. No.6485 of 2021
                                ------

    Jairam Singh                         ....  .... .... Petitioner
                          Versus
    The State of Jharkhand through NCB, Ranchi
                                         ....  .... ....Opposite Party
                                ------
CORAM       : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
                                       ------
     For the Petitioner          : Mr. Bibhash Sinha, Advocate
     For the NCB                 : Mr. Niraj Kumar, J.C. to ASGI
                                       ------
     Order No.03 Dated- 27.09.2021
            Heard the parties through video conferencing.

Apprehending his arrest in connection with NCB Crime No. 12/NCB/Ranchi/2020 (NDPS Case No.45 of 2020) instituted under Sections 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is consignors/co-receiver of the seized 434.3 kg of ganja. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 2021 (4) SCC 1 para 158 of which reads as under:-

"158. We answer the reference by stating:

158.1. That the officers who are invested with powers under Section 53 of the NDPS Act are "police officers" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as a result of which any confessional statement made to them would be barred under the provisions of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and cannot be taken into account in order to convict an accused under the NDPS Act. 158.2. That a statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act."

That it is settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the confession made before the police officer in a case involved in the offences punishable under the penal provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is not admissible in the evidence and in this case except confessional statement of the co-accused person and there is no material to implicate the petitioner in this case and there is no chance of the petitioner of being involved in any offences if released on bail. It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para 34 of the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent/opposite party no.2 of anticipatory bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to co- operate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail.

Mr. Niraj Kumar, appearing for Narcotic Control Bureau on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and drawing attention of this Court towards page nos.31,38 and 41 of the counter affidavit filed by Narcotic Control Bureau in this case, submits that therein Call Details Report between the petitioner and the co-accused-Arvind Ray, co- accused-Santosh Kumar Yadav and the co-accused-Chandan Kumar Singh have been mentioned in detail and the same goes to show the complicity of the petitioner in the offences involved in the case and also goes to show that since the petitioner is involved in racket of transportation of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, hence, there is every chance of the petitioner being involved in similar offences, if released on bail and since the seized article comes under commercial quantity, hence, rigors of section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act,1985 is attracted in this case therefore in the absence of any material to show that the allegations against the petitioner are false and that he will not indulge in any offence while on bail the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is then submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the chain of supply of the narcotic drugs. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail.

Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioners of his involvement in racket of transportation of 434.3 kg. of ganja, which comes under commercial quantity and there is no material in the record to suggest that the allegation against him are false or that he will not indulge in any offence if released on bail as also 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 petitioner be given privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the above named petitioners is rejected.

(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Pappu/