Ravi Kumar vs State of Haryana

Inderjit Singh, J.—Ravi Kumar-petitioner has filed this petition against the State of Haryana u/s 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 188 dated 19.4.2014 registered at Police Station Civil Lines Rohtak, District Rohtak for the offence u/s 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ''the NDPS Act'').

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record.

As per the FIR, a raid was conducted by the Police after receiving secret information that two young persons found coming from Subhash Chowk to T-Point. Each of them was carrying one plastic bag on his head. One Chetan was apprehended on the spot, who was found in possession of 149 bottles Codeine syrup, 1030 capsules of Destropropzyphene, 1650 tablets of Nitrazepam and 164 injections of Fortwin, for which he could not produce any permit or licence. The other accused-present petitioner succeeded in running away by throwing the bag. From the bag carried by the present petitioner, 145 bottles Codeine syrup, 1130 capsules of Dextropropzyphene, 1650 tablets of Nitrazepam and 172 injections of Fortwin were recovered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of arguments argued that the petitioner is a licence holder and he has been falsely implicated and no offence is made out as per the provisions of the NDPS Act.

First of all the perusal of the FIR itself shows that the recovery is not effected from the chemist shop. Rather, the petitioner was carrying narcotics medicines in the bag carried by him on his head from which a heavy quantity of the narcotic medicines have been recovered as stated above. There is no explanation regarding carrying the medicines on their heads in the gunny bags by the present petitioner and his co-accused and as to where they were going with the bags. The conduct of the petitioner by throwing the gunny bag and running away also shows his guilt. In no way, it can be held that the petitioner has a right to take these medicines anywhere. He has not shown the bill or the licence etc. at that time. The custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Ashwani Kumar Tuli Vs. State of Punjab, and Tejpal Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Others, and of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, . I have gone through the law laid down in these judgments. These judgments having distinguished facts will not apply in the present case.

Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any ground to grant the benefit of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner and this petition is dismissed.