Nikhil Keshari Alias Nikhil Keshri v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC9 Mar 2021B.A./2508/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the bail application of Nikhil Keshari, convicted for transporting Nagarotic drugs in commercial quantity. The court held it was not a fit case for bail due to the severity of the offence and lack of material to suggest innocence. The trial court was directed to conclude the trial within six months.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected. Trial directed to be concluded within six months by the trial court.

Nikhil Keshari Alias Nikhil Keshri Vs the State of… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

B. A. No. 2508 of 2021

¶3

Nikhil Keshari @ Nikhil Keshri … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party

¶6

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY

¶7

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

¶8

02 / 09.03.2021 Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the lockdown is over.

¶10

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for the present.

¶11

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Golmuri P.S. Case No.86 of 2020 (Drugs & Cosmetic Case No.4 of 2020) registered under sections 22 (3)/28 (A)/27(b) (ii) of Drugs & Cosmetics Act and under Section 22 of N.D.P.S. Act.

¶12

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was travelling in an auto along with 7.2 kg of Tramadol and 1,20,000 tablets of Alprazolam each tablet containing 0.5 mg of Alprazolam and weighing 0.5 g in total. It is then submitted that there is no illegality regarding the transportation of the said tablets by the petitioner and the co-accused persons have been granted bail by a coordinate bench of this court. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

¶13

The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that as per the gazette notification, the commercial quantity of Tramadol is 250 grams but in this case 7.2 kg of Tramadol was recovered from the possession of the

¶14

petitioner which is much more than the commercial quantity and also submits that keeping in view that the weight of each of the Alprazolam tablet is 0.5 gm though each of the tablet were containing 0.5 mg of Alprazolam and in view of Sl.no. 239 (4) of the Table under Clause (viia) and (xxiiia) of sub clause 2 of N.D.P.S. Act,

¶15

1985, which reads as under :

¶16

“The quantities shown in column 5 and column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or any solution or anyone or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content.”

¶17

submits that the weight of the entire tablets is to be taken into consideration for finding under which category of quantity the same comes and as in this case 1,20,000 tablets each weighing .5 gm, so the total weight of 6000 g that is 6 kg hence the quantity of Alprazolam also comes under commercial quantity. It is next submitted by learned Spl. P.P. that during course of investigation, police recorded the statement of Suman Jha the owner of Suman Enterprises who has categorically stated that on the basis of forged document of his shop, the co-accused persons were transporting the said medicines containing Narcotic Drugs illegally. It is also submitted that in view of recovery of drugs in commercial quantity, the rigors of section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 is attracted in this case 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 and the bail application of the co-accused has already been rejected by this court vide order dated 20.01.2021 passed in BA no. 11349 of 2020 ,hence,, the petitioner ought not be released on bail.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid facts of the case, as the petitioner was found in transportation of Narcotic Drugs in commercial quantity and in absence of any material to suggest that petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged and that there is no chance of the petitioner being involved in any offence while on bail, this Court is of considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.

¶19

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 witnesses be examined by observing the precautions relating to COVID -19 Pandemic.

¶20

( ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.)

¶21

Smita/-

Nikhil Keshari Alias Nikhil Keshri v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nikhil Keshari Alias Nikhil Keshri 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

Jitendra Prasad Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vikraj Soni Alias Punni Alias Vikraj Gupta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ulman Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand

Dilip Paswan Vs the State of Jharkhand

Tinku Alias Mahtab Alam Vs the State of Jharkhand

Shankar Das Vs the State of Jharkhand