# Anuj Sirohi @ Himanshu Sirohi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1193
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-09
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 482 BNSS No. 3572 of 2025
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/anuj-sirohi-himanshu-sirohi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-53856
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

bail involving offences under Sections 376D, 506
IPC and 67 IT Act, despite serious allegations
and issuance of NBW.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482, -
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections - 376D,
506,
147,
452,
354
-
Information
Technology Act, 2000 - Section - 67, 67-D
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
-
Sections - 82, 83, 161, 164, 173(2), 299-
Anticipatory Bail Application - filed under Section
482 B.N.S.S. by the applicant - FIR - allegations
of gang rape, criminal intimidation and IT Act
violations - FIR initially did not attribute rape
allegations to applicant - contradictions in
prosecutrix's statements under Sections 161 &
164 Cr.P.C. - Division Bench earlier stayed arrest
- applicant did not misuse protection - Charge
sheet filed - trial commenced - applicant claims
clean antecedents - State and complainant
opposed bail citing seriousness of offence and
applicant's alleged abscondence - Court noted
contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements,
absence of direct rape allegations against the
applicant, his cooperation during investigation
under protection of a prior stay order, clean
antecedents, and commencement of trial, and
relying on precedents (Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre
and
Sushila
Aggarwal),
granted
anticipatory bail with strict conditions including
furnishing bond, cooperating in trial, not leaving
India without permission, and refraining from
influencing witnesses, subject to cancellation if
conditions are violated - application is allowed.
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Para - 16, 17, 18, 19)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694,
Sushila Aggarwal & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi)
& Anr (2020) 5 SCC 1.

LIST OF ACTS
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) -
Indian
Penal
Code
(IPC)
-
Information
Technology Act, 2000 - Code of Criminal
Procedure.
LIST OF KEYWORDS
Anticipatory Bail - Gang Rape - Criminal
Intimidation
-
Contradictory
Statements
-
Division Bench Stay Order - Charge Sheet Filed -
Clean
Antecedents
-
NBW
(Non-Bailable
Warrant) - FSL Report Pending.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 0036/2023 - Police Station:
Thakurdwara,
District
Moradabad,
Uttar
Pradesh.
FIR dated 21.01.2023 under Sections 147, 452,
354, 376D, 506 IPC and 67D IT Act.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Akhilendra Singh,
Jitender Singh, Prabhat Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s): G.A., Shri Zainul
Abdin.

## Text

9 All. Anuj Sirohi @ Himanshu Sirohi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1193
information report, two witnesses have
witnessed the alleged incident but during
the course of trial they did not support the
prosecution version and turned hostile.
Even most noticeable point is that victim
herself did not support the prosecution
version and clearly stated that she was
threatened by her mother and beaten by her
brother to implicate the accused in this
false case, therefore, she had given her
statement to Investigating Officer as well
as before the Magistrate on the influence
and under fear of their family members.
She categorically stated that nothing was
happened with her and accused Ajeet did
not commit any sexual assault or rape on
her. Dr. Sandesh Aarekh PW-6 had stated
that on the examination of internal private
part of the victim, symptom of rape of
sexual assault was not found. In such view
of the matter, we, therefore, find that the
court below has taken possible view of the
matter on appreciation of entire evidence
on record, which cannot be substituted by
this Court taking a different view as per the
law discussed above.

Accordingly, it is not a case worth
granting leave to appeal. The application
for granting leave to appeal is rejected.

Re: Government Appeal

Consequently, since the Criminal
Misc. Application (Leave to Appeal) has
been rejected by order of date, the present
government appeal is also dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1193
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S
482 BNSS No. 3572 of 2025

Anuj Sirohi @ Himanshu Sirohi ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Akhilendra Singh, Jitender Singh, Prabhat
Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Zainul Abdin

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the applicant is entitled to anticipatory
bail involving offences under Sections 376D, 506
IPC and 67 IT Act, despite serious allegations
and issuance of NBW.

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482, -
Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Sections - 376D,
506,
147,
452,
354
-
Information
Technology Act, 2000 - Section - 67, 67-D
-
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
-
Sections - 82, 83, 161, 164, 173(2), 299-
Anticipatory Bail Application - filed under Section
482 B.N.S.S. by the applicant - FIR - allegations
of gang rape, criminal intimidation and IT Act
violations - FIR initially did not attribute rape
allegations to applicant - contradictions in
prosecutrix's statements under Sections 161 &
164 Cr.P.C. - Division Bench earlier stayed arrest
- applicant did not misuse protection - Charge
sheet filed - trial commenced - applicant claims
clean antecedents - State and complainant
opposed bail citing seriousness of offence and
applicant's alleged abscondence - Court noted
contradictions in the prosecutrix's statements,
absence of direct rape allegations against the
applicant, his cooperation during investigation
under protection of a prior stay order, clean
antecedents, and commencement of trial, and
relying on precedents (Siddharam Satlingappa
Mhetre
and
Sushila
Aggarwal),
granted
anticipatory bail with strict conditions including
furnishing bond, cooperating in trial, not leaving
India without permission, and refraining from
influencing witnesses, subject to cancellation if
conditions are violated - application is allowed.
1194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Para - 16, 17, 18, 19)
Application Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of
Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694,
Sushila Aggarwal & Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi)
& Anr (2020) 5 SCC 1.

LIST OF ACTS
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) -
Indian
Penal
Code
(IPC)
-
Information
Technology Act, 2000 - Code of Criminal
Procedure.
LIST OF KEYWORDS
Anticipatory Bail - Gang Rape - Criminal
Intimidation
-
Contradictory
Statements
-
Division Bench Stay Order - Charge Sheet Filed -
Clean
Antecedents
-
NBW
(Non-Bailable
Warrant) - FSL Report Pending.

CASE ARISING FROM
Case Crime No. 0036/2023 - Police Station:
Thakurdwara,
District
Moradabad,
Uttar
Pradesh.
FIR dated 21.01.2023 under Sections 147, 452,
354, 376D, 506 IPC and 67D IT Act.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Akhilendra Singh,
Jitender Singh, Prabhat Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s): G.A., Shri Zainul
Abdin.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari
Singh, J.)

1. Instant Criminal Misc. Anticipatory
Bail Application has been filed under section
482 BNSS on behalf of applicant Anuj Sirohi
@ Himanshu Sirohi under Section 482 of
B.N.S.S. seeking anticipatory bail in Case
Crime No. 0036/2023 under Section 376D,
506 IPC and 67 I.T. Act, Police Station -
Thakurdwara, District - Moradabad till the
trial of the aforesaid case.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of applicant submitted that applicant is an
innocent person and has not committed any
offence as alleged in the FIR and no material
has been collected by the investigating
agency during the investigation against the
petitioner. After completion of investigation,
the charge sheet has been filed on 24.6.2023
before competent court.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the applicant submitted that on plain
reading of the FIR, there is no allegation
against the applicant for committing rape. It
is further submitted that the prosecutrix has
improved her version in the statement
recorded under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C.
only for purpose to falsely implicate the
applicant as he is close friend of the coaccused Vijai Sirohi. It is also submitted that
there is no evidence on the record to establish
that the applicant has made any videography
as alleged against him.

4. The arrest of the co-accused Vijay
and 2 others was stayed by the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated
3.5.2023. During the said period the police
has investigated the matter and filed the
charge sheet for the offence punishable under
Section 376D, 506 IPC and 67 D of I.T. Act.
It is submitted that the petitioner/applicant
has not misused or abused the protection
granted by the Division Bench. It is further
submitted that the applicant is a man of clean
antecedents and it is also undertaken that the
applicant shall abide by all the terms and
conditions as imposed by the Court while
granting him anticipatory bail. There is no
apprehension of the petitioner fleeing from
justice. It is, therefore, stated that anticipatory
bail be granted to the petitioner/applicant.

5. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned
AGA appearing on behalf of RespondentState vehemently opposed the instant
anticipatory bail application and submitted
that the applicant has been charged for
9 All. Anuj Sirohi @ Himanshu Sirohi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1195
commission of heinous crime under Section
376D of IPC. The applicant is also
absconder and he has never cooperated
with the investigating agency during the
investigation.
He
has
referred
the
statements u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C.
of the prosecutrix and submitted that after
plain reading of the statements there are
sufficient materials/evidence on record to
establish that he has committed the offence
punishable under Section 376-D, 506 IPC
and 67 IT Act.

6. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the complainant vehemently
opposed the instant anticipatory bail
application and reiterates the contentions of
Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned AGA. The charge
sheet has been filed against the petitioner for
offence punishable under section 376D, 506
IPC and 67 IT Act. He further states that the
petitioner/applicant is accused of very serious
offence punishable under section 376D IPC,
therefore, anticipatory bail should not be
granted to him. It is also submitted that the
applicant has made video of the prosecutrix
and sent it to her husband in support of his
argument, he has relied on the statement of
the husband under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is
further submitted that the applicant has also
threatened to viral the said video in public by
way of uploading the same on social media.
In view of the facts and circumstances, the
applicant does not deserve to be released on
anticipatory bail and, therefore, his instant
bail application is liable to be rejected.

7. Heard learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the applicant, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the State and learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the complainant
and perused the material on record.

8. As per FIR version, there are no
allegation of committing rape against the
petitioner. Thereafter in statement recorded
under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the prosecutrix
has made the following statements:-

"बयाि ककया कक मेरा िाम
द पमाला उफम पूजा पुत्र देिेन्र लसंह R/O
सैदपुर थािा बीबी िगर बु०शहर है। मेर
शाद ददिांक 11.05.2014 को प्रशान्त कुमार
पुत्र महाराज लसंह िे साथ ग्रा० दुल्हापुर
पट्ट जाट में हुयी थी। में माकेदटंग तक
काम करती है। माकेदटंग के काम में प्लाि
देिा होता है मेरे गांि में रहिे िो विजय
लसरोह पुत्र ज्ञािी लसंह नििासी ग्राम सैदपुर
क्जला बुलन्दशहर िे प्लाि के ललए बुलाया
जहााँ उसिे मेरे फोटो खीचे ललए और जब
में िापस अपिे ससुराल आयी तो विजय
लसंह िे मेरे फोटो मेरे पनत को भेजिे की
धमकी देकर मुझे बुलाया ददिांक 15.08.22
को मैं उसकी धमकी से िरकर उसके पास
चल गयी िहााँ निनति मुझे कार में बैठाकर
OYO होटल ले गया जहााँ उस होटल में
विजय, मिीर्, अिुज पहले से ह मौजूद थे
िहााँ निनति मुझे एक कमरे में ले गया िहााँ
निनति िे रेप ककया और निनति िे विडियो
बिाई मिीर् और विजय लसरोह भी िह
मौजूद थे। उसके बाद में अपिी ससुराल
आयी तो ये लोग मुझे िीडियो भेजकर
ब्लैक मेल करिे लगिे मैिे िर की िजह से
ककसी को कुछ िह ं बताया था अब कुछ
ददि पहले सागर िाम के लडके िे मुझे
फोटो भेजकर ब्लैक मेल ककया और लमलिे
के ललए बुलाया और धमकी द की यदद तू
1196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
िह ं आयी तो िो विडियो और फोटो मेरे
पनत को भेज देगे। बहुत दहम्मत करके ये
बात मैिे अपिे पनत को बतायी। यह मेरा
बयाि है।"

9. After reading of the aforesaid
statement of the prosecutrix, the allegation
of rape was made only against co-accused
Vijay Sirohi. The role of the present
applicant/petitioner is only that he was
present at the site.

10. The statement recorded under
Section 164 Cr.P.C. of the prosecutrix is
also quoted below:-

"अिलोकि
िाददिी/पीडिता
अन्तगमत धारा 164 सीआरपीसी पीडडता िे
सशपथ बयाि ददया कक, मेरा िाम द पमाला
उफम पूजा D/O देिेन्र लसंह उम्र 26 िर्म R/O
दुल्हापुर पट्ट ठाकुरद्िारा मुरादाबाद है। मैं
माकेदटंग का काम करती हूं। यह काम मैं
सि् 2012 से करती हूं। इसी काम के दौराि
मेर मुलाकात विजय लसरोह से हुई, विजय
लसरोह को मैं अपिी शाद से पहले से
जािती हूं। िो मेरा शाद से पहले िायफ्रेन्ि
था। मैं अपिी शाद के बाद भी उससे काम
को लेकर लमलती रह हूाँ। उसके पास हमारे
शाद से पहले के फोटो है। िो फोटो इसिे
सि् 2019 में िायरल कर ददये मैिें इससे
कहा कक अब मुझे तुझसे कोई बात िह ं
करिे िाल चो इसिे कहा अगर तू मुझसे
बात िह ं करेगी तो तेरे पनत को फोटो ददखा
दूंगा। माचम 2019 में में उससे चगलिे मेरठ
गई हम CCS UNIVERSITY में लमले थे। मैं
अपिे भाई से बताकर विजय के साथ आ
रह थी। मैं अपिे िेटें को भाई के पास
छोडकर विजय के साथ उसकी गाडी में
आयी थी। मुझे उसपर पूरा भरोसा था मैं
उसकी गाडी से होटल में गई िह मुझे खािा
णखलािे के िहािे लेकर गया िहां उसकी
पहले से सैदटंग थी। उसिे िहा पर मेरे साथ
जबरि बलात्कार ककया मिीर् िे हमार
विडियो ििाई कफर में अपिे घर आ गई
उसके बाद मुझे विजय िे विडियो िायरल
करिे की धमकी द मैिे अपिे घर पर
ककसी को िह ं बताया में अगस्त 2022 में
उससे कफर लमलिे गई 15.08.2022 को में
लमलिे गई थी। निनति िाम का लडका मुझे
एक OYO होटल में लेकर गया िहां पर
अिुज, मिीर् और विजय पहले से मौजूद थे।
िह ं पर अिुज और निनति िे मेरा रेप
ककया और विडियो भी बिाई। जब इन्होिे
मुझे धमकी देिी बन्द िह ं की तो मैिे
अपिे पनत को सार बात बताई क्जसके बाद
हमिे थािे में अपिी ररपोटम ललखिाई है।
मुझे इन्साफ चादहए बस यह मेरा बयाि है।
सुिकर तस्द क ककया पीडिता बोले जािे पर
मेरे द्िारा शब्द ि शब्द बयाि अंककत ककया
गया। हस्ताक्षर अंग्रेजी अपदठत ददिांक
23.01.2023 हस्ताक्षार द पमाला दहन्द पदठत
पीडिता मैिे बयाि पढा बयाि ठीक है।
द पमाला बयाि पीडिता को पढकर सुिाया
स्ितंत्र सहमनत दजम करा बयाि स्िीकार
9 All. Anuj Sirohi @ Himanshu Sirohi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1197
ककया। हस्ताक्षर अग्रेजी अपदठत ददिांक
23.01.2023 | CJ.JD.N NC CR NO.03"

11. After perusal of the aforesaid
statements of the prosecutrix indicates
several
material
contradiction
in
the
statements.

12. On query, learned counsel for the
State submitted that video and photographs
which have been procured from the mobile
phone of the accused persons has already
been sent for FSL but the FSL report has
not been received yet.

13. The applicant has filed Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 6923 of 2023 for
quashing the FIR dated 21.01.2023 giving
rise to Case Crime No. 0036 of 2023 under
147, 452, 354, 376-D, 506 IPC and 67 D of
IT Act, After hearing the parties, the
Division Bench of this Court has stayed the
arrest of the petitioner till submission of
police report under Section 173(2) Cr.PC.
This is not a case of the State that during
the said period between the date of stay
order dated 3.5.2023 and till filing of the
charge sheet, accused has tried to influence
or temper any evidence. Cognizance has
already been taken by the Court concerned
and trial has also been commenced.

14. The parameters for granting
anticipatory bail have been succinctly laid
down in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre
v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) I SCC
694 wherein the Supreme Court has held as
under:-

112. The following factors and
parameters can be taken into consideration
while dealing with the anticipatory bail.

(i) The nature and gravity of the
accusation and the exact role of the
accused must be properly comprehended
before arrest is made;

(ii)
The
antecedents
of
the
applicant including the fact as to whether
the accused has previously undergone
imprisonment on conviction by a court in
respect of any cognizable offence;

(iii)
The
possibility
of
the
applicant to flee from justice;

(iv)
The
possibility
of
the
accused's likelihood to repeat similar or
other offences;

(v) Where the accusations have
been made only with the object of injuring
or humiliating the applicant by arresting
him or her;

(vi)
Impact
of
grant
of
anticipatory bail particularly in cases of
large magnitude affecting a very large
number of people;

(vii) The courts must evaluate the
entire available material against the
accused very carefully. The court must also
clearly comprehend the exact role of the
accused in the case. The cases in which the
accused is implicated with the help of
Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code,
1860 the court should consider with even
greater care and caution because over
implication in the cases is a matter of
common knowledge and concern;

(viii)
While
considering
the
prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a
balance has to be struck between two
factors, namely, no prejudice should be
caused
to
the
free,
fair
and
full
investigation
and
there
should
be
prevention of harassment, humiliation and
unjustified detention of the accused;

(ix)
The
court
to
consider
reasonable apprehension of tampering of
the witness or apprehension of threat to the
complainant;

(x)
Frivolity
in
prosecution
should always be considered and it is only
1198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the element of genuineness that shall have
to be considered in the matter of grant of
bail and in the event of there being some
doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events,
the accused is entitled to an order of bail.

113. Arrest should be the last
option and it should be restricted to those
exceptional cases where arresting the
accused is imperative in the facts and
circumstances of that case. The court must
carefully examine the entire available
record and particularly the allegations
which have been directly attributed to the
accused
and
these
allegations
are
corroborated
by
other
material
and
circumstances on record.

114. These are some of the
factors which should be taken into
consideration
while
deciding
the
anticipatory
bail
applications.
These
factors are by no means exhaustive but they
are only illustrative in nature because it is
difficult to clearly visualise all situations
and circumstances in which a person may
pray for anticipatory bail. If a wise
discretion is exercised by the Judge
concerned, after consideration of the entire
material on record then most of the
grievances in favour of grant of or refusal
of bail will be taken care of. The legislature
in its wisdom has entrusted the power to
exercise this jurisdiction only to the Judges
of the superior courts. In consonance with
the legislative intention we should accept
the fact that the discretion would be
properly exercised. In any event, the option
of approaching the superior court against
the Court of Session or the High Court is
always available."

 (emphasis supplied).

15. The said principle has been
affirmed by the constitution Bench of the
Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal and
Ors v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr
(2020) 5 SCC 1.

16. No doubt, the petitioner is accused
of a very serious offence punishable under
Section 376 D IPC. But other aspects can
not be ignored while adjudicating the
instant case i.e. firstly, there are material
contradiction in the statement of the
prosecutrix, secondly, the Division Bench
of this Court has already granted stay on
arrest of the accused till the filing of the
charge sheet. Thirdly, he has never misused
the arrest stay order and cooperated with
the investigation and now investigation has
been completed and charge sheet has been
filed. Fourthly, the cognizance has been
taken by the court and trial has already
been commenced. Fifthly, he is man of
clean antecedents and undertaken to
cooperate in trial.There is no apprehension
of the applicant/petitioner fleeing from
justice.

17. The State and complainant has
taken serious objection that since NBW has
been issued against the petitioner/applicant,
he is not entitled for any leniency by way
of granting anticipatory bail. Taking into
consideration of the said objection, I am of
the view that the Supreme Court and other
High Courts have held that where the
proceedings under Section 82/83 and 299
of Cr.P.C. (84/85 and 335 of the BNSS)
have been initiated against the accused
and/or he has been declared proclaimed
offender, the application for anticipatory
bail would be maintainable. However, Such
consideration and grant of anticipatory bail
to the accused would depend upon the
gravity and seriousness of the offence
involved therein.

18. Taking into consideration of the
discussion, legal propositions in foregoing
9 All. Randhir Vs. State of U.P.
1199
paragraphs, I am inclined to allow the
instant
anticipatory
bail
application.
Accordingly, it is allowed. In the event of
arrest, the applicant Anuj Sirohi @
Himanshu
Sirohi
be
released
on
anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime
till the conclusion of the trial on furnishing
a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One
Lakh) with two sureties each in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court
concerned with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make
himself available for trial before the Court
concerned as and when date fixed.

(ii) The applicant shall provide his
mobile number and it is directed to always
keep open his mobile phone 24 hours and
cooperate in the trial and if Court concerned
requires some document, the applicant will
provide the same to the IO/Court concerned.

(iii) The applicant shall not directly
or indirectly make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade from
disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer;

(iv). The applicant shall not leave
India without previous permission of the Court
and if he has pass port, the same shall be
deposited by him before the court concerned.

19. In default of any of the conditions
by the applicant, the I.O. and learned AGA
are at liberty to file appropriate application
for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted
to the applicant.

20.
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
observations/direction,
the
instant
application is disposed off.

21. It is made clear that observations
made in the instant order is only for the
adjudication of the present application.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1199
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 8184 of 2025

Randhir ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Amber Khanna, Raj Kumar Khanna, Ram
Kripal, Sandal Khanna

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
applicant,
against
whom
proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been
initiated and who is alleged to be absconding, is
entitled to anticipatory bail?

HEADNOTES
Criminal
Law
-
Narcotic
Drugs
and
Psychotropic
Substances
Act,
1985
-
Sections 8/20, 37, 50, 36A(4) - Code of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973
-
Sections
167(2), 173(2), 173(8), 293 - Second Bail
Application - first Bail was rejected - FIR -
alleged that, when police intercepted the
vehicle, 151.600 kgs of Ganja (commercial
quantity) was recovered
from the truck,
applicant was in, and both driver and cleaner
confessed to transporting it - applicant pleaded
that, he had no connection with the contraband,
has no criminal history, and claims procedural
lapses under Section 50 NDPS Act - Court found
that, a commercial quantity of Ganja was
recovered from the applicant and co-accused,
attracting the stringent bail restrictions under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Relying on
precedents such as Dharampal Singh, Mohan
Lal, and Rattan Mallik, the Court emphasized
that
"possession"
includes
conscious
and