Anticipatory bail denied where vehicle ownership and a co accused's statement created a prima facie link to alleged trafficking.

Anticipatory bail was refused where the applicant, as registered owner of a vehicle from which contraband was allegedly recovered, was linked to the offence primarily through vehicle registration and a co-accused's memorandum; the court applied the principle that registered vehicle ownership together with available evidentiary material can create a sufficient prima facie link to alleged trafficking under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances regime and allied medicine-control provisions, and found the material on record did not exclude the applicant's involvement, warranting denial of pre-arrest relief.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant is entitled to grant of anticipatory bail in respect of offences alleged under Sections 21, 22, 8 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and Sections 13 and 5 of the Medicine Control Act.

Analysis: The applicant is the registered owner of the vehicle from which the contraband was allegedly recovered; no contraband was recovered directly from the applicant and the police case against the applicant rests on a memorandum of a co-accused and the vehicle registration. The available evidence concerning the applicant's connection with the alleged trafficking was examined in light of the nature of offences under the cited statutes and the factual material on record.

Conclusion: The anticipatory bail application is refused and no relief of pre-arrest bail is granted to the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi: The registered ownership of the vehicle that yielded alleged contraband, coupled with the nature of the evidence on record, can constitute sufficient prima facie link to deny anticipatory bail where the material does not exclude the applicant's involvement.

---