Raju Dangi v. The State Of Jharkhand
Case brief
What is this about?
In an appeal for anticipatory bail, the petitioner, accused of possessing opium under the N.D.P.S. Act, argued there was no recovery witness and no seizure list served. The Single Judge refused anticipatory bail considering the nature of the allegations.
What did the court decide?
Prayer for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. stands rejected.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI A. B. A. No.1877 of 2015
Raju Dangi. ………. Petitioner. -VersusThe State of Jharkhand. .……... Opposite Party. ------ CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. UPADHYAY
-----For the Petitioner: Mrs. J. Mazumdar, Advocate For the State : A.P.P.
03/27.07.2015: Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is an accused in a case registered under Sections 18, 21 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act.
It is alleged that the petitioner has been found in possession of one kilogram opium.
It is submitted that the petitioner was not present in the house when alleged recovery was made. No inmate(s) of the house has/have been made witness(s) to the recovery of said opium. No copy of seizure list was served to any of the family members.
Counsel for the State has opposed the petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail.
Considering nature of allegation, I do not feel inclined to give benefit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. to the petitioner in connection with Pathalgadda P.S. Case No.22 of 2015, corresponding to G.R. No.728 of 2015.
Accordingly, petitioner's prayer for anticipatory bail stands rejected.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case involving possession of opium.
Whether the lack of presence of family members during recovery warrants granting anticipatory bail.
Whether the nature of charges under the N.D.P.S. Act precludes the grant of anticipatory bail.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Raju Dangi
- respondent
The State of Jharkhand
Coram
D. N. Upadhyay
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Jharkhand HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- A.B.A./1877/2015
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court