Anticipatory bail can be denied in NDPS cases when the statement of a co-accused, corroborated by call records, provides sufficient evidence of the applicant's involvement in the purchase, sale, or transport of contraband.

Order

1. This anticipatory bail application under Section 482 B.N.S.S. has been filed by the petitioner in connection with F.I.R. No.187/2025, registered with the Police Station Gangdhar, District Jhalawar, for the offence punishable under Sections 8 and 18 of the NDPS Act .

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in this case merely on the basis of statement of co-accused, Ganga Singh, from whose possession the alleged contraband, that is, Opium, being 1 kg, is said to have been recovered. She further submits that there is no any evidence so as to connect the petitioner for purchasing, selling and transporting of the alleged contraband, which has been recovered from the possession of co-accused. She also submits that the petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation.

3. The learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed this anticipatory bail application and submits that as per the version of co-accused, Ganga Singh, from whose possession the alleged contraband has been recovered, it is the present petitioner on whose instruction he was going to supply that contraband to some person in State of Haryana. He further submits that there is regular call conversation in between the petitioner and co-accused, Ganga Singh, which speaks of the involvement of the petitioner in purchasing, selling and transporting the alleged contraband.

4. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the case diary.

5. As per the facts on record, co-accused, Ganga Singh, was found in possession of alleged contraband, that is, Opium, weighing 1 kg. Co-accused, Ganga Singh, has deposed before the Police that he was to supply this contraband to someone on instruction of present petitioner, Dashrath Singh.

6. On perusal of the case diary, it seems that there is regular call conversation in between the petitioner and co-accused, Ganga Singh.

7. In view of the evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case.

8. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case and so also the allegation and evidence collected during investigation, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

9. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner is dismissed.