Dismissed

Tinku Quraishi Alias Shahjaza Quraishi v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 Oct 2020B.A./7704/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Any defects in the petitioner's bail application were noted, but the court chose to hear it on merits conditionally. However, considering the gravity of the NDPS charge, recovery of brown sugar, the petitioner's prior criminal antecedents in similar cases, and his status as a drug peddler, bail was denied and the trial was expedited.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail rejected; trial to be expedited; forthwith directed to be treated.

Tinku Quraishi Alias Shahjaza Quraishi Vs the State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI [CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION] B.A. No. 7704 of 2020

¶2

…....

¶3

Tinku Quraishi @ Shahjada Quraishi …… Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …… Opposite Party -----

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through : Video Conferencing)

¶5

----- For the Petitioner : Mr. D.K. Chakraverty, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P -----

¶6

02/Dated: 06/10/2020:

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there is defect nos.9(i) to 9(iii) in the bail application as pointed out by the stamp reporter but he has filed an undertaking that he shall remove the defects within 30 days after the physical court starts and the bail application may be heard as it is a regular bail application in which petitioner is in custody since 24.07.2020.

¶8

Considering the same, this Court is inclined to hear the bail application on merits but with condition that petitioner shall remove the defects within 30 days after the physical court starts.

¶9

Joint Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of this order after the physical court starts so as to remove the defects.

¶10

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. D.K. Chakraverty and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ravi Prakash.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case No.275 of 2020 (N.D.P.S. Case No.10 of 2020), for the offence registered under Sections 21(b), 22 and 31 of the NDPS Act and Sections 414/34 IPC.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that police recovered nine packet puriya of brown sugar, each containing 5.4 grams i.e. total 48 grams of brown sugar kept in one ball, which was kept along with Rs.1,22,920/-.

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of this petitioner or from his house rather same has been recovered from outside of the house keeping or hanging in a tree and petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same, as such, petitioner, who is in custody since 24.07.2020, may be enlarged on bail.

¶14

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that he has forwarded a report submitted by the Officer-in-charge, Chainpur Police Station to this Court showing the criminal antecedent of the

¶15

-2-

¶16

petitioner in similar offence i.e. Palamau (Town) Case No.207 of 2017 under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 17A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of Children Act and Garhwa (Town) P.S. Case No.314 of 2020 under Section 21A of the NDPS Act and has further submitted that petitioner is a drug peddler, as such, he may not be enlarged on bail.

¶17

Considering the rival submissions of the parties and gravity of the offence that this petitioner has two other criminal cases of similar nature of NDPS Act and in the present case brown sugar has been recovered, this Court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶18

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby rejected. However, learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶19

The State Authority shall take all endevour for treatment of this petitioner, if he is himself found to be a consumer of such article by sending him before the RINPAS, Ranchi or before any forum where such persons are being treated.

¶20

( Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

¶21

Sandeep/R.S.

Tinku Quraishi Alias Shahjaza Quraishi v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tinku Quraishi Alias Shahjaza Quraishi 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

Birendra Kumar Alias Mangar Bhuiyan Vs the State of Jharkhand

MD Afjal Vs the State of Jharkhand

Om Prakash Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pintu Saw Alias Pintu Kumar Saw Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samsher Khan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Guddu Singh Alias Nikhil Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand