IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI ABA No. 7742 of 2024 Haripado Manjhi … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opp. PartY Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY For the Petitioner : Ms. Nivedita Kundu , Adv. For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha , Spl.PP. 03 / 02.01.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with NDPS P.S. Case No. 39 of 2024 arising out of Arki P.S. case no. 28 of 2024 registered under Sections 15 (c) / 22/ 25 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in purchase, selling and using the poppy straw of commercial quantity. While taking the poppy straw weighing 104.8 kg inter alia to sell to the petitioner, the co-accused Hare Krishna Mahto was arrested by the police. During the course of investigation, it transpired that there was a number of conversations over mobile phone between the co-accused persons and the petitioner on the date of occurrence itself. It is then submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. The petitioner was not found in possession of any poppy straw and the petitioner is ready to co-operate with the investigation of the case hence, the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. The learned Spl. PP vehemently opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submits that as the petitioner is accused of committing the offence involving commercial quantity, the condition precedent for releasing him on bail, is that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence and he is not likely to commit the offence while on bail, as has been envisaged in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. It is next submitted that there is direct and specific allegation against the petitioner that he was involved in purchasing the poppy straw of commercial quantity and while the poppy straw of commercial quantity being taken to the petitioner by the co-accused, the same has been seized by police. It is next submitted that keeping in view the huge quantity of poppy straw seized, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during investigation of the case to find out the supply chain of the poppy straw. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious allegations against the petitioner as well as in the absence of any material to suggest that there is reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail as well as the requirement of the custodial interrogation of the petitioner during investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case, where the privilege of anticipatory bail be given to the petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner is rejected. (ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) Smita/-