IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No. 1400 of 2025 ------ Taslim Faruque, aged about 49 years, son of Yasim Ansari, resident of Village-Simaliya, P.O.+P.S.-Ratu, Dist.-Ranchi … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandan Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Kumar Nishant, Advocate For the State : Mr. Manoj Kr. Mishra, Addl. P.P. ------ Order No.02 Dated- 03.03.2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail in connection with Senha P.S. Case No.46 of 2024 registered for the offences punishable under sections 20(b)(ii)/c/25/28/29 of the N.D.P.S., Act. The Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in transportation of ganja and ganja in commercial quantity in total weighing 144.350 kg was recovered from the co-accused and the petitioner was in constant touch with the co-accused -Taufiq Ansari and had talked to Taufiq Ansari five times on the date of occurrence. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that in view of the fact that ganja in commercial quantity has been recovered from the co-accused persons and the petitioner was in constant touch with the co-accused persons having talked to him five times on the date of alleged occurrence; therefore, rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 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 there is no chance of him being not involved in any offence while being given the bail; the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the chain of supply of ganja. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privilege 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 allegations or that there is no chance of him not committing any offence if given the privilege of anticipatory bail as well as the requirement of the custodial interrogation of the petitioner during the investigation of the case, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the abovenamed petitioner be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail of the above-named petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sonu/Gunjan-