IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.785 of 2025 ------ Indrajit Singh, aged about 50 years, Son of Lakhvir Singh, Resident of village- Pattikila Chaoke P.O.- Bhatinda P.S.- Bhatinda, Dist.- Bhatinda (Punjab). .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Jalaj Pati Tiwari, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kr. Vashistha, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-04-02-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Chouparan P.S. Case No.199 of 2024 instituted under Sections 414/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 17(c)/18(c)/29/61/62 of the N.D.P.S. 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 in furtherance of common intention with the co-accused persons was involved in illegal transportation of 300 Kgs poppy seeds in the truck bearing Registration No.RJ-23GA-5705. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that the petitioner only gave his vehicle to the transport company. Drawing attention of this Court towards para-10 of the instant bail application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent. 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 privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that in view of Section 37 of the Narcotic-Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; since the seized poppy seeds is in commercial quantity and there is no material available in the record to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged and there is no chance of the petitioner committing any offence while on bail and as there is requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case to find out the details of the network for the supply of poppy seeds in huge quantity; hence, the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case as well as considering the fact of the case that the seized poppy seeds is in commercial quantity, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/