IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.4816 of 2024 ------ Ruman Nurain @ Ruman Rain, aged about 20 years S/o Junnu Rain, R/o Azad Basti, P.O. & P.S.-Gumla, District-Gumla, Jharkhand. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Mohit Prakash, Advocate : Mr. Shubham Srivatsa, Advocate For the State : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P. ------ Order No.08 Dated- 20/03/2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.06 of 2024 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.411 of 2023 registered under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Section 21(c)/29 of NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in transportation and selling of narcotics drugs and 54 bottles of Cough Syrup of 100ml each containing codeine was recovered by the police while kept hidden in the water tank by the co-accused person. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further 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. Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that keeping in view the fact that narcotic drugs in commercial quantity has been seized, hence, the rigors of NDPS Act is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations and that he is likely to not commit any offence while on bail, and as the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case in order to find out the details of the case and chain of supply of narcotic drugs; hence, the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and recovery of narcotic substance in commercial quantity and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail 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 privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Abhiraj/