Jharkhand High Court
Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand on 23 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
A.B.A. No.1180 of 2022
------
1. Sunil Yadav @ Sunil Kumar Yadav
2. Bhola Yadav .... .... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand .... .... ....Opposite Party
------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------
For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Chaturvedy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl.P.P
------
Order No.02 Dated- 23.02.2022
Heard the parties through video conferencing.
Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes to remove the defects
pointed out by the stamp reporter within two weeks after resumption of the
court in physical mode.
In view of personal undertaking given by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the
present.
Apprehending their arrest in connection with Bashisthanagar P.S. Case
No.79 of 2018 (N.D.P.S. Case No.10 of 2019) registered under Sections 17/18 of
the N.D.P.S. Act, the petitioners have moved this Court for grant of privileges
of anticipatory bail.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation
against the petitioners is that the petitioners were involved in illegal business of
opium and opium cultivation and 1.700 kilogram of wet opium was recovered
and seized from courtyard of the house of the co-accused. It is then submitted
that the allegations against the petitioners is all false. It is further submitted that
the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. and they have been implicated in this
case only on the basis of confessional statement of the co-accused person.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
reported in 2021 (4) SCC 1, submits that the confessional statement recorded
under Section 67 of NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in the trial of an offence
under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. It is lastly submitted
that the petitioners undertake to co-operate with the investigation of the case.
Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners be given the privileges of anticipatory
bail.
Learned Spl. P.P appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer
for anticipatory bail of the petitioners and submits that the prayer for
anticipatory bail of the co-accused persons have already been rejected by this
Court vide order dated 16.06.2021 and 07.07.2021 passed in A.B.A. No.1999 of
2021 and A.B.A. No.1862 of 2021 respectively and further submits that the trial
of the case has not begun yet hence the ratio of the principle of law settled by
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Toofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu(Supra) reported in 2021 (4) SCC 1 is not applicable in this case. It is then
submitted that keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are professionally
involved in illegal business of opium including its cultivation, hence, their
custodial interrogation is required during the investigation of the case to find
out the chain of supply of narcotic drugs as well as the details of the cultivation.
Hence, it is submitted that the petitioners ought not be given the privilege of
anticipatory bail.
Considering the serious nature of allegation and the requirement of their
custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the
considered view that this is not a fit case where the privileges of anticipatory
bail be given to the petitioners. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the above named petitioners is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.)
Pappu/
