IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1639 of 2025 ------ Nilakantha Naik @ Nilkanth Nayak, aged about 42 years, s/o Sadhu Naik, r/o village Rasipatra Jaisar, PO & PS Subdega, Dist. Sundargarh, Odisha .... .... …. Petitioners Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioners : Mr. Gaurav, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP ------ Order No.02 Dated- 17-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Palkot P.S. Case No. 55 of 2023, corresponding to NDPS Case No. 02 of 2024 instituted for the offences punishable under Sections 20(b)(ii)( c)/22( c) of NDPS Act, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was involved in selling of 21.570 Kg of ganja which was recovered from the possession of co-accused who purchased the said Ganja from this petitioner. It is next submitted that the allegations against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that except the confessional statement of co-accused persons, there is no other materials against the petitioner to involve him in this case. It is lastly submitted that petitioner is ready and willing 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 appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail and submits that since Narcotic Drugs in commercial quantity has been seized from the co-accused persons, hence, the 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 offence alleged and that there is no chance of his being not involved in any offence while on bail as well as the requirement of his custodial interrogation during the investigation of the case, the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail more so because the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the -2- investigation of the case to find out the chain of supply of the psychotropic substances. It is therefore submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner, requirement of his custodial interrogation as well as the fact that though Narcotic Drugs in commercial quantity has been seized in connection with this case; in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations or that there is no chance of his being not committing any offence while on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Anjali/