Allowed

Taukir Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Nov 2019A.B.A./6581/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ranchi granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner charged under N.D.P.S. Act and IPC regarding sedative medicines, noting the absence of a forensic report proving the substances were narcotics, while imposing standard bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner enlarged on anticipatory bail with bail bonds of Rs.20,000 each and two sureties, appearing in every date till conclusion of trial.

Taukir Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

¶2

A. B.A. No. 6581 of 2019

¶3

….....

¶4

Taukir Alam, S/o Amanullah Khalifa

¶5

…...... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand ….. Opposite Party.

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

¶9

For the Petitioner :Mr. Awadhesh Pandey, Advocate

¶10

:Mr. Divesh Krishna, Advocate For the State :Mr. Pankaj Kumar, A.P.P.

¶11

04/22.11.2019. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel

¶12

for the State.

¶13

The petitioner has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 02/2018 arising out of Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 136 of 2018, for the offence registered under sections 414/120B of the IPC, Sections 18(C), 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 & Sections 21/22 of the N.D. P.S. Act.

¶14

Earlier the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 01.03.2019 passed in A. B. A. No.7076 of 2018. The petitioner has renewed the prayer for bail after six months of the said order on 05.09.2019 and has submitted that petitioner is not a Psychiatric patient though on earlier occasion under some confusion learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was admitted in Central Institute of Psychiatry, Ranchi and to that effect he has brought the Out Door Patient record dated 29.06.2019 and some documents showing treatment under Dr. M. Borde dated 28.07.2019, Dr. Mritunjay Kumar dated 23.08.2019 and Dr. Siddhartha Sinha dated 30.06.2019 but has wrongly submitted that he was under treatment of Psychiatric problem. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is not suffering from any Psychiatric problem rather has suffered some problem for which he was treated by those doctors but certainly not for Psychiatric problem as such, petitioner may be enlarged on bail as nothing has recovered from the house or shop of the petitioner and the medicines, which has been recovered by the Police such as Codeine Phosphate & Triprolidine Hydro Chloride Syrup, Spasmo Proxyvon (R) Plus and Alprazolam Tablets have nothing to do with any toxicated substance rather as per the information, he has received as are given by the doctor to the patient in appropriate dose. Apart from

¶15

-2-

¶16

this learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no evidence on record or material collected by the Investigating Officer during investigation that this petitioner has ever dealt in such Narcotic Substance. There is nothing on record to suggest that these syrups/medicines comes under the purview of Narcotic and Psychotropic Substance nor forensic report regarding seized article as Narcotics has been brought on record, as such, petitioner who has no criminal antecedent may be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that as per the Medical report of these medicines it is sedative in nature as such, petitioner may not be enlarged on bail.

¶18

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and state and perused materials brought on record. The F.I.R. has been lodged under Section 414/120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and 18(C, 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Sections 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act though nothing has been brought on record by the State to establish the case under Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, as such, petitioner is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail in the event of his surrender/arrest within four weeks from today, on furnishing bail bonds of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees Twenty thousand) each with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Garhwa in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No. 02/2018 arising out of Nagar Untari P.S. Case No. 136 of 2018, subject to the conditions as laid down under section 438(2) Cr.P.C. with further condition that the petitioner shall appear before the learned court below on each and every date till conclusion of the Trial.

¶19

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶20

Jay/-

Taukir Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Taukir Alam v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Ltd. Represented through Its Asst Manager Vs Smt Sudama Modi

Ramsakhi Devi Alias Sakhi Devi Vs Ajab Narayan Tiwary And Anr.

Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Karan Hembrom And Ors.

Gava Orain And Ors. Vs The Branch Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr.

Kudni Orain Vs The Branch Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. And Anr.

MD Raja Vs the State of Jharkhand