B. RAMU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the above batch of petitions, there are totally five petitioners, who are alleged to have been involved in the offences u/s 8 (c) r/w 20 (b) (ii) (c) and 29 (1) of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, for dealing with narcotics substances, which are covered in crime Nos. 223, 224, 235 and 320 of 2021 on the file of the respective respondent/police. The crime relates to different instances, but all involving trafficking of narcotic substances by the accused/petitioners who were working as a group. Apprehending arrest at the hands of the police, the present petitions have been filed by the petitioners praying to enlarge them on bail in the event of arrest.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have been implicated in the said offence based on the confession statement of the co-accused and that the petitioners have not involved themselves in any of the offences. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the various instances have been shown in the FIR leading to the arrest of the petitioners and the seizure of contraband, but the statements recorded and the FIR are at variance, which clearly shows that the whole case is fabricated for the purpose of implicating the petitioners in the offence. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the informant and the investigator are one and the same and, therefore, the FIR is wholly unsustainable. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the facts as projected by prosecution is not based on any proper materials and the cases have been foisted against the petitioners. Therefore, learned counsel prays that the petitioners may be enlarged on bail in the event of arrest by imposing even stringent conditions.

(3.) Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioners are habitual offenders, who deal in trafficking narcotics and only on the basis of information, and the contraband, which is of commercial quantity has been seized from them. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the petitioners along with persons, who are still at large, form a very big network, who deal in narcotics, thereby, jeopardizing the lives of many persons. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the information was provided by the SubInspector of Police and investigation was conducted by the Inspector of Police and they are two different persons and, therefore, the submission of the petitioners that the informant and the investigator are one and the same is wholly erroneous. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that the quantity involved in the cases are much more than the commercial quantity as specified under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to bail in view of the bar u/s 37 of the NDPS Act. It is the further submission of the learned Government Advocate that very many cases are pending against the petitioners and all the petitioners have previous cases against them for very same offences and, therefore, granting them anticipatory bail would only lead to the petitioners scuttling the process of investigation which would be detrimental not only to the law and order situation, but also detrimental to the public health and, therefore, he strenuously opposed grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners.