01Facts
Police received information that a Bolero was transporting ganja from Odisha towards Uttar Pradesh and established a blockade near Rudukela Square, Lailunga. The applicant was seen on a motorcycle and fell; police took him to hospital. A Bolero stopped nearby was searched, and 4.108 kg of ganja was allegedly seized.
¶ 1–4 · pp. 1–3The crime was registered against the Bolero’s occupants under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. The applicant apprehended arrest after his alleged role as a pilot was reported; the State said the allegation arose from a co-accused’s memorandum statement that the applicant had been paid to guide them. The applicant sought anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS, asserting that he was implicated only on that statement and had no criminal antecedents.
¶ 1–4 · pp. 1–302Issues
i.Whether the applicant should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with the NDPS crime
¶ 1, 5–7 · pp. 1, 3–4ii.Whether the circumstances relied on by the parties—including the co-accused’s memorandum statement and the absence of criminal antecedents—supported granting anticipatory bail
¶ 3–6 · pp. 2–303Law Applied
Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides the procedural basis for seeking anticipatory bail.
¶ 1, 6–7 · pp. 1, 3–4The alleged offence was under Section 20(B) of the NDPS Act. The order cites no precedent or additional legal test; it records that the Court considered the facts and circumstances, the nature of the allegation, and the parties’ submissions in deciding whether to grant relief.
¶ 1, 6–7 · pp. 1, 3–4Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 482
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 20
04Reasoning
The Court considered the State’s account that the applicant’s alleged involvement rested on the co-accused’s memorandum statement, which stated that the co-accused had paid him to guide them towards Chhattisgarh.
¶ 4–6 · pp. 2–3The State did not dispute that the applicant had no other criminal antecedents. Taking these circumstances, the nature of the allegation, and the parties’ submissions into account, the Court found it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
¶ 4–6 · pp. 2–305Holding
The Court allowed the application and directed that, if arrested in the crime, the applicant be released on anticipatory bail on executing a personal bond of ₹25,000 with one surety for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the arresting officer.
¶ 7 · p. 4The applicant must be available for interrogation when required, must not influence persons acquainted with the facts or prejudice a fair trial, and must appear before the trial Court on every date fixed until disposal of the trial.
¶ 7 · p. 4Original Court PDF
NOOR MOHAMMADvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
