Petitioner challenged bail rejection in an NDPS case alleging he was a habitual supplier. Court rejected bail on account of offence gravity and antecedents but directed trial court to conclude trial within nine months.
Prayer for bail rejected; direction to expeditiously conclude trial within nine 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. 764 of 2023
------Avinash Yadav … …. Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand … …. Opp. Party --------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY
-------For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sah, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P. --------
Oral Order
02 / Dated : 14.02.2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner named above has been made accused in connection with Godda (Town) P.S. Case No. 177 of 2022 (NDPS Case No. 04(A) of 2022) for the offence under Sections 20(B)II of the NDPS Act.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that only small quantity of brown sugar has been seized from one Sonu Kumar Sharma and the name of the petitioner has come up on the basis of the confessional statement of Sonu Kumar Sharma.
Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the petitioner is habitual supplier of narcotics and it is he who has given brown sugar to Sonu Kumar Sharma from whom it was seized. The petitioner has criminal antecedent and he was involved in another NDPS case.
Considering the nature of allegation and gravity of offence, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Accordingly, his prayer for bail is hereby rejected.
However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within nine months after framing of charge. The petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail after nine months
(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J . )
AKT
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is eligible for bail in a charge under Section 20(B)II of the NDPS Act given the allegations and his antecedents.
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the trial.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Avinash Yadav
The State of Jharkhand
Gautam Kumar Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
