Anticipatory bail is not inclined to be granted when there is prima facie evidence, including financial transfers and co-accused statements, connecting the petitioner to the transportation of a commercial quantity of contraband.

Order

1. This anticipatory bail application is filed by the accused petitioner u/S 482 BNSS in connection with FIR No. 9/2025 registered at Police Station Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu for offences punishable u/S 8/20 of the NDPS Act and Section 281, 109(1) & 121(1) of the BNS.

2. Heard and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the accused petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also perused the case diary.

3. Learned counsel for the accused petitioner submits that the accused petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that neither in the FIR nor in the information given by the co-accused- Subhash under Section 232 of the BNSS, there is any kind of role of the petitioner in transportation of the alleged contraband which is said to have been recovered from the possession of the co-accused- Subhash. He further submits that the accused petitioner is also not having any money transaction or call conversation with any of the co-accused. He further submits that the accused petitioner is ready to cooperate in the investigation and no purpose will be served by sending him in custody.

4. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the bail application and submits that in the interrogation note of the co-accused- Subhash from whose possession the alleged contraband which is more than the commercial quantity was recovered, there is specific mention of the present accused petitioner being involved in the purchase and transportation of the alleged contraband. He further submits that there are details of call conversation among the present accused petitioner and other accused persons and Rs.2,00,000/- is also said to have been transferred through online mode from the account of the accused petitioner in the account of Ajay Paspu Reddy-the co-accused.

5. As per the facts on record, the contraband ganja weighing 204.85 kg. was recovered from a truck, which was driven by the co-accused Subhash, who is said to have brought that contraband from co-accused Ajay Paspu Reddy and Das Manjhi from Odisha. In the interrogation note, the co-accused- Subhash, from whose possession the alleged contraband was recovered, has stated that he and the present petitioner were doing that work jointly. As per the facts on record, Rs.2,00,000/- is also said to have been transferred from the account of the present accused petitioner in the account of Ajay Paspu Reddy.

6. Looking to the evidence collected during investigation, it cannot be said that the accused petitioner has no connection with the alleged contraband recovered from the possession of the co-accused- Subhash which is stipulated to be more than the commercial quantity.

7. Taking into consideration the overall facts and circumstances of the case so also the fact that the alleged contraband is much more than the commercial quantity and there is evidence on record which prima-facie connects the accused petitioner with the transportation of the alleged contraband, this Court is not inclined to extend the benefit of anticipatory bail to the accused-petitioner.

8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is dismissed.