In a bail application under the N.D.P.S. Act where prior bail was rejected, the High Court refused review despite the report stating all prosecution witnesses were examined, concluding no justifiable reason exists to disturb the previous order.
Prayer for bail rejected; trial court allowed three months extension to conclude trial.
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. 5888 of 2021
Abhinav Singh … Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … Opposite Party
------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
------ For the Petitioner : Mr. R.C.P. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P. ------
Order No.04 Dated- 08.10.2021
Heard the parties.
The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Adityapur P.S. Case No.82 of 2020 (N.D.P.S. Case No.10 of 2020) registered under sections 17/21(b)/25 of N.D.P.S. Act.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier the prayer for bail of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 04.01.2021 in B.A. No.10201 of 2020 and the fresh ground is that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.
Perusal of the record reveals that a report has been received from the trial court and it has been intimated therein that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is at the advance stage.
Learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that since the trial is at an advance stage and there is overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, hence, there is every chance of the petitioner absconding, if released on bail.
Considering the fact that the prayer for bail of the petitioner has already been rejected and the trial is at an advance stage, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to review the order of rejection of the prayer for bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is rejected.
In view of the said report, three months extension is allowed to the learned trial Judge from the date of receipt of copy of this order to conclude the trial.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J . )
Sonu-Gunjan/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order rejecting bail should be reviewed given that the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is at an advanced stage.
Abhinav Singh
The State of Jharkhand
Anil Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
