Bail application rejected for petitioner accused of transporting 4.75 kg of opium (commercial quantity) under NDPS Act. Court directed trial to be concluded expeditiously within six months of receipt of order.
Bail prayer rejected; trial directed to be concluded within six months.
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
B. A. No. 1945 of 2021
Deepak Topno … Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilendu Kumar , Adv. For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.
03 / 10.03.2021 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.
The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Rania P.S. Case No. 10 of 2020, corresponding to N.D.P.S. Case No.16 of 2020 registered under sections 17(ii) of NDPS Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner is the owner of the motorcycle and was illegally transporting 4.75 kg opium in his motorcycle and on seeing the police party he fled away from the place of occurrence leaving the motorcycle and opium and upon the search of the motorcycle, the police seized the said opium. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is next submitted that nothing has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner. It is then submitted that the petitioner undertakes to co-operate with the trial of the case. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner has voluntarily surrendered in the court on 25.09.2020 as mentioned in paragraph 13 of the bail application. Hence it is submitted that the petitioner be released on bail.
Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that the petitioner was involved in transportation of 4.75 kg opium which comes under commercial quantity, hence, rigors of section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act,1985 is attributed in this case. It is further submitted by learned Spl.PP that the prayer for bail of the co-accused has already been rejected by this court vide order dated 01.03.2021 passed in BA no. 11354 of 2020 and in absence of any material to show that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and that there is no chance of the petitioner indulging in any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not to be released on bail.
Considering the serious nature of the allegation against the petitioner of possessing 4.75 kg opium, which comes under commercial quantity and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner was not guilty of the offence alleged or that there is no chance of the petitioner indulging in any offence, if released on bail, this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order in administrative side of this court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and the witnesses by examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID19 pandemic.
( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)
Smita/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail in a case involving commercial quantity of opium.
Whether the trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak Topno
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
