The court emphasized that anticipatory bail in narcotics cases should be granted sparingly, balancing individual rights with public interest and the necessity of effective investigation.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking pre-arrest bail. It has been asserted that FIR No. 308 of 2023, dated 21.10.2023, was registered against the petitioner for the commission of offences punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short ‘NDPS Act’). The petitioner apprehends his arrest under the FIR. The petitioner is innocent, and he was falsely implicated. He would abide by all the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. Hence, the present petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a status report asserting that the police party was on patrolling duty on 21.10.2023 towards Malana. They found a cannabis crop growing on 12 bighas of land at Bachin Thach. The plants were found to be 85000. Ten plants were retained as samples, and the other plants were destroyed. One plastic bag containing 09.700 killograms of Cannabis seeds was also recovered. The police seized the plant, a control sample of soil and the bag containing cannabis seeds. These were sent to SFSL Junga, and as per result of the analysis, soil in the roots of the plants was found to be similar to the control sample. Cannabis plants were confirmed to be cannabis plants after analysis. The police obtained the demarcation report and found that these were grown on Khasra Nos. 5, 9, 10, 11. The co- owners filed their respective affidavits stating that they had handed over the land to the petitioner for cultivation. The petitioner has absconded, and he is to be interrogated. Hence, the status report.

3. I have heard Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

4. Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner is innocent and was falsely implicated. The petitioner is the co-owner of a very small parcel of land. The cannabis plants grow spontaneously, and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for their cultivation. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioner be released on bail. He relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Naveen Saini alias Chintu vs. State of Punjab, SLP (Cr. L) No. (s). 2710 of 2025 decided on 16.04.2025 in support of his submission.

5. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State, submitted that the police had found 85000 plants, which is a huge quantity. They could not have grown spontaneously. The police also found a bag containing 09.700 killograms of Cannabis seeds, which prima facie shows that the plants were cultivated. The petitioner is to be interrogated to determine the destination of the cannabis; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24: (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 509: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1143 that the power of pre- arrest bail is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

“69. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but also several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power, and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors are considered to decide whether it is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence, and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power f