Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Singh vs. The State Of Jharkhand

Facts

The petitioner, Suraj Kumar @ Suraj Singh, sought anticipatory bail in connection with Simariya P.S. Case No. 210/2025, registered for offences under Section 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 21(C), 25, and 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated and stated that 42 boxes of cough syrup were seized from another house. He asserted he runs a medical shop with a valid license and submitted GST invoices. The State opposed the bail, stating that 5040 bottles of Codeine syrup were recovered from Hitavan Ganjhu's house. The case diary indicated the syrup was purchased by the petitioner, who failed to provide justification for purchasing a commercial quantity or disclose its sale destination.

Held

The Court rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail. The Court found, prima facie, that the petitioner appeared to be a conspirator. The petitioner had not satisfied the investigating authorities regarding the sale of the syrups to Hitavan Ganjhu. The case diary indicated that the petitioner, along with other co-accused, were conspirators in storing the syrup. The Court noted that the medical shop was previously under the custody of another person who stated it was given to the petitioner for opening a medical shop. Given the commercial quantity of the syrup and the parameters for granting bail in NDPS cases, the Court was not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, given the allegations of conspiracy and recovery of commercial quantity of narcotic substances? The petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated, possessed a valid medical shop license, and had submitted GST invoices to demonstrate the legitimate purchase of the seized syrup. He contended that these documents supported his claim of lawful business dealings. The State argued that the petitioner was a conspirator in storing the syrup, as indicated in the case diary. They emphasized that the petitioner failed to provide any documentation during the investigation to justify the purchase of a commercial quantity of the syrup or to explain its intended sale. The State also highlighted that the seized syrup was of commercial quantity and that the petitioner had not satisfied the authorities regarding its origin and destination.