IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A.B.A. No.1872 of 2025 ------ Sujeet Munda, aged about 26 years Son of Mangal Munda, Resident of Village- Bautiya P.O- Ulidih, P.S.- Maranghada, District- Khunti. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand .... .... .... Opposite Party ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhay Kr. Chaturvedy, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P ------ Order No.02 Dated-25-03-2025 Heard the parties. Apprehending his arrest in connection with Maranghada P.S. Case No.29 of 2022 corresponding to NDPS Case No.48 of 2022 instituted under Section 15(C)/22/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, 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 was involved in illegal trade and sale and purchase of poppy and he was present at the place of occurrence with his motorcycle but on seeing the police, he managed to flee away from the place of occurrence. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is then submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR though he is named as the owner of the motorcycle concerned. It is then submitted that the petitioner has got no connection with any illegal activity nor he is in any way involved in purchase or loading of 1473.7 KG of Doda (Poppy Straw). It is next submitted that the petitioner has no criminal antecedent as mentioned in para-14 of the instant bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and submits that keeping in view the fact that Doda in commercial quantity has been seized by the police from the place of occurrence; where the petitioner was also stated to be present but fled away on seeing the police; the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 is attracted in this case and in the absence of any material to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is guilty of the offence or that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not be given the privilege of anticipatory bail. It is further submitted custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required during the investigation of the case to find out the source and chain of supply of huge quantity of doda. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be given the privileges of anticipatory bail. Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of being involved in purchase and sale of doda in commercial quantity and as there is no reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence 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 to find out the source and chain of supply of huge quantity of doda, this Court is not inclined to give the privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner. Accordingly, the prayer for grant of privileges of anticipatory bail to the abovenamed petitioner is rejected. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) Saroj/