IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Bail Application NO. ____ OF 2025
IN THE MATTER OF:
Anand Kumar Gupta @ Anand Gupta @ Anand Kumar
Aged 30 Years, S/o Anil Kumar Gupta @ Thakuri Sao
Resident of Village Lamta, Post Office Shiv Rajpur,
Police Station Lawa, District Chatra
(CONFINED IN CENTRAL JAIL, HAZARIBAGH)
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand
…Respondent
BAIL APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 480 OF THE BHARATIYA
NAYAYA SANHITA, 2023
MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:
1. That the Petitioner herein is filing the present bail
application seeking enlargement on bail in
connection with FIR No. 131/2023, registered at Bahri
Police Station, District Hazaribagh, Jharkhand,
under Sections 21(c), 22, and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS
Act). The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
28.03.2025 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of
Jharkhand at Ranchi in Bail Application No.
____/2024, whereby the Petitioner’s bail application
was rejected.
2. That the brief facts of the case are as follows: a.
On 26.03.2023, acting on confidential information,
the Bahri Police intercepted a Bolero vehicle bearing
registration No. JH02V9613 and recovered 115 kg of
cannabis/ganja, a commercial quantity under the NDPS
Act. b. The Petitioner was not present at the scene
of recovery, was not arrested on the spot, and has
no direct involvement in the transportation or
possession of the contraband. c. The Petitioner’s
name surfaced three months after the incident, based
solely on a statement by the registered owner of the
vehicle, one Pradeep Kumar Rajak, who alleged that
the Petitioner had hired the vehicle from a
subsequent hirer, one Pawan Kumar. d. The Petitioner
is neither the registered owner of the vehicle nor
has any direct agreement with the registered owner.
The alleged agreement with the subsequent hirer is
legally invalid and lacks evidential value in the
eyes of law. e. No identification parade or other
corroborative evidence (e.g., CCTV footage, witness
testimony) establishes the Petitioner’s presence at
the scene or involvement in the offense. f. The
investigation agency has failed to produce any direct
evidence linking the Petitioner to the commission of
the offense.
3. That the Petitioner is a law-abiding citizen with no
prior criminal antecedents and has been in judicial
custody since 02.07.2023. The Petitioner is a
permanent resident of Village Lamta, Post Office Shiv
Rajpur, Police Station Lawa Long, District Chatra,
Jharkhand. He has deep roots in society and comes
from a humble background. The Petitioner’s family
depends on him financially and emotionally. His
prolonged incarceration has caused immense hardship
to his family, particularly his aging parents and
dependent siblings. The Petitioner solemnly
undertakes not to abscond or tamper with evidence,
nor to influence witnesses, and is willing to comply
with any conditions that may be imposed by this
Hon’ble Court. His continued detention serves no
useful purpose in the absence of any concrete
evidence linking him directly to the offense,
especially when the entire case hinges on a statement
made by a co-accused after a significant delay, which
has not been corroborated by any independent or
objective material. Furthermore, the Petitioner’s
incarceration is not only affecting his personal
liberty but is also causing severe emotional and
psychological trauma to his family members,
especially his elderly parents who are now left to
fend for themselves without any financial or moral
support. The Petitioner’s commitment to abide by the
rule of law and cooperate fully with the judicial
process makes him a fit candidate for the grant of
bail.
4. That the Petitioner submits the following grounds
for the grant of bail: a. Lack of Prima Facie
Evidence: The prosecution’s case rests solely on the
statement of the registered owner, which is
inadmissible as a confessional statement under the
NDPS Act, as held by this Hon’ble Court in Tofan
Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31. No
other evidence connects the Petitioner to the
offense. b. No Conscious Possession: The Petitioner
was not in possession of the vehicle or the
contraband at the time of recovery. The alleged
hiring of the vehicle from a subsequent hirer,
without a valid agreement with the registered owner,
does not establish conscious possession or control
over the contraband, as required under Section 21(c)
of the NDPS Act (Sunil v. State of Haryana, CRA-S-
1918-SB-2019, Punjab & Haryana High Court). c.
Compliance with Section 37 of NDPS Act: i. There are
reasonable grounds to believe that the Petitioner is
not guilty of the offense, as their involvement is
based on a delayed, uncorroborated statement and a
legally invalid agreement. ii. The Petitioner,
having no criminal antecedents, is not likely to
commit any offense while on bail, and strict
conditions can be imposed to ensure compliance. d.
Delayed Implication: The Petitioner’s name surfaced
three months after the incident, raising doubts about
the integrity of the investigation. The absence of
an identification parade or other evidence further
weakens the prosecution’s case. e. Prolonged
Incarceration and Trial Delays: The trial is unlikely
to conclude soon, and continued detention violates
the Petitioner’s right to personal liberty under
Article 21 of the Constitution (Rabi Prakash v. State
of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 669). f. Procedural
Irregularities: The prosecution has failed to comply
with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, including
Section 42 and Section 50, which are vital to uphold
the legality and sanctity of the recovery process,
thereby rendering the entire investigation and
subsequent recovery suspect (Shivraj Gorakh Satpute
v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1644).
5. That the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand erred in
rejecting the Petitioner’s bail application by: a.
Failing to consider the lack of direct evidence
linking the Petitioner to the offense. b. Not
appreciating the inadmissibility of the registered
owner’s statement and the invalidity of the alleged
hiring agreement. c. Mechanically applying the
rigors of Section 37 without assessing the
Petitioner’s minimal role and clean antecedents. d.
Overlooking the fact that the Petitioner has been in
custody for over nine months without trial even
commencing, thereby infringing upon his fundamental
right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of
the Constitution. e. Ignoring the fact that the case
against the Petitioner rests on highly speculative
grounds and lacks any forensic, digital, or direct
corroborative evidence. The Hon’ble High Court
failed to take into account that the alleged
involvement of the Petitioner was based on a vague
and belated statement by a third party whose own role
is under suspicion. f. Not considering the settled
principles of law that bail is the rule and jail is
the exception, particularly in cases where the
prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie
case against the accused.
6. That the Petitioner undertakes to abide by any and
all conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court in the
event of bail being granted. The Petitioner is ready
and willing to furnish a personal bond and surety of
Rs. 5,00,000/- or such higher amount as deemed fit
by this Hon’ble Court. He shall report regularly to
the concerned police station, preferably on a bi-
weekly basis or as otherwise directed by the Court.
The Petitioner undertakes to surrender his passport
immediately upon release and shall not leave the
jurisdiction of the relevant trial court or
investigating agency without prior written
permission. Furthermore, the Petitioner assures this
Hon’ble Court that he shall not in any manner
influence any witness, tamper with any piece of
evidence, or obstruct the judicial process in any
form. The Petitioner’s conduct, while in custody,
has been satisfactory, and there is no indication of
any behavior that would warrant denial of bail on
grounds of potential misconduct.
7. That the grant of bail to the Petitioner will not
cause any prejudice to the prosecution, particularly
when the Petitioner’s involvement is not
substantiated by any objective, direct or forensic
evidence. The Petitioner is not a habitual offender,
nor does he pose any risk to society. Conversely,
continued detention would amount to pre-trial
punishment and inflict irreversible damage to his
fundamental rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution. The Petitioner’s right to life and
liberty should not be curtailed on mere assumptions
or speculative risks, especially when the
prosecution has already completed substantial
investigation. His prolonged custody without trial
being concluded in a timely manner offends not only
constitutional protections but also the settled
principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is
submitted that bail is the rule and jail is the
exception, particularly in cases where the
prosecution has failed to establish prima facie
involvement. The societal stigma and reputational
harm faced by the Petitioner and his family due to
his incarceration have compounded their suffering,
despite no proven guilt. Additionally, the
Petitioner has consistently cooperated with the
investigation and has not violated any judicial
directives, indicating his respect for the law and
reinforcing his suitability for release on bail.
8. That the Petitioner craves leave to rely on the
following judgments: a. Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil
Nadu (2013) 16 SCC 31 – Inadmissibility of
confessional statements under NDPS Act. b. Sunil v.
State of Haryana (CRA-S-1918-SB-2019) – Bail granted
where accused had no conscious possession of
contraband. c. Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha (2023
SCC OnLine SC 669) – Prolonged incarceration
overrides Section 37 rigors. d. Union of India v.
Mohd. Yusuf (2011) 11 SCC 754 – Bail to be considered
on individual merits.
9. That the present application is made bona fide and
in the interests of justice.
PRAYER
It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. Grant bail to the Petitioner in connection with FIR
No. 131/2023, registered at Bahri Police Station,
Jharkhand, under Sections 21(c), 22, and 29 of the NDPS
Act, subject to such conditions as this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit; and
b. Pass any other or further order(s) as this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONER, AS IN
DUTY BOUND, SHALL EVER PRAY.
Filed by:
Advocate for the Petitioner
Place: New Delhi
Date:
ANNEXURES: Annexure P-1: Copy of FIR No. 131/2023.
Annexure P-2: Copy of the order dated 28.03.2025 passed
by the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand.
Annexure P-3: Any other relevant documents, e.g.,
Petitioner’s identity proof, proof of no antecedents.
MEMO OF PARTIES
IN THE MATTER OF:
Anand Kumar Gupta @ Anand Gupta @ Anand Kumar
Aged 30 Years, S/o Anil Kumar Gupta @ Thakuri Sao
Resident of Village Lamta, Post Office Shiv Rajpur,
Police Station Lawa, District Chatra
(CONFINED IN CENTRAL JAIL, HAZARIBAGH)
…Petitioner
Versus
State of Jharkhand
…Respondent
Filed by:
Advocate for the Petitioner
Place: New Delhi
Date: