Dhiraj Kumar @ Dhiraj Kumar Shah vs The State Of Jharkhand
2022 Latest Caselaw 3642 Jhar

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                    A.B.A. No.5748 of 2022

         Dhiraj Kumar @ Dhiraj Kumar Shah                       ..... ... Petitioner
                                        Versus
         The State of Jharkhand                                 .... .... Opp. Party
                                     --------

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

------

         For the Petitioner            : Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, Advocate
         For the State                 : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
                                    --------
05/12.09.2022           Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Spl. P.P. for the
          State.

This anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed applicant seeking anticipatory bail in connection with Mango (Olidih) O.P. P.S. Case No.61 of 2022 registered under Sections 20(B)II A of the N.D.P.S. Act pending in the court of learned Special Judge, N.D.P.S., Jamshedpur.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that as per F.I.R. allegations, the informant--police officer had apprehended one person, namely, Ravindra Nath Mahto and from his possession 72 grams of ganja was recovered. The name of the applicant figured in the F.I.R. on the disclosure statement made by the apprehended accused.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in this case the persons preparing the seizure report was S.I. and he was not authorized for the same. The name of the applicant transpired on disclosure statement made by the co-accused, as such, the statement under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act is also not admissible against him. The applicant has been implicated in this case with object to humiliate him on being arrested by the police.

Learned Spl. P.P. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and contended that in this case the informant was authorized and competent police officer. So far as the admissibility of the statement under Section 67 of the N.D.P.S. Act of the apprehended co-accused is concerned, the same is admissible while considering the anticipatory bail application, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Haryana vs. Samarth Kumar reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 622.

In view of the submissions and materials available on record, no case of anticipatory bail is made out. Accordingly, the applicant's prayer for anticipatory bail is, hereby, rejected.

(Subhash Chand, J.) Rohit