Dismissed¶20

Lalbabu Choubey v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC27 Jun 2024B.A./1098/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

NDPS bail refusal, Jharkhand HC, 27.06.2024; B.A. 1098/2024; accused in Rail Barkakana P.S. Case 04/2023 (NDPS ss.17,18,21,22); seizure per Column-2 at Platform No. 04 below staircase; no independent witnesses (CrPC ss.104-105); raiding team not searched; body search after notice u/s 50 NDPS on Platform 4; commercial quantity - stringent view u/s 37 NDPS; custody since 25.05.2023; bail rejected; trial court directed to expedite trial; Ratnaker Bhengra, J.

What did the court decide?

Having heard both counsels and gone through the records, the court was not inclined to release the petitioner on bail in the facts and circumstances of the case. ¶19

Lalbabu Choubey Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

¶2

B.A .No. 1098 of 2024

¶3

Lalbabu Choubey … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

1.The State of Jharkhand

¶6

Union of India

¶7

… … Opposite Parties

¶8

¶9

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

¶10

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate : Mr. Om Prakash, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, APP For the UOI : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI --------

¶11

08 /27.06.2024

¶12

Heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner is an accused in connection with Rail Barkakana P.S. Case No. 04 of 2023 registered under sections 17,18,21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act pending in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Ramgarh.

¶14

The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per Column-2 of the seizure list the place of seizure indicated is Platform No. 04 and below the staircase. It is submitted that the seizure was thus made from the place indicated itself and not from the person or body of the petitioner or the accused persons. Counsel has posed the question that why in column -2 the names of this petitioner or the accused persons are not mentioned. It is further argued that no independent witnesses have been made witnesses into the seizure which is against the requirements of the law and also argued that as per section 104 Cr.P.C. and section 105 of the Cr.P.C persons from the locality are to be called for and if they are not willing then even the prosecution is to be followed, so the requirement of independent witnesses absolutely necessary and in the absence , the entire seizure will be improper. The learned counsel further submitted that the members of the raiding team also needed to be searched thoroughly which is not the case and who had searched them or would have searched them was not given in the written report and the FIR and that also demonstrate lacuna in the procedure. It is further submitted that the petitioner is 72 years old with no criminal antecedent and therefore it is not possible that he would be indulging in such trafficking of narcotic substance and he is not likely to repeat or commit the offence again. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody from

¶15

-2-

¶16

25.05.2023, therefore, he may be allowed the privilege of bail.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has opposed the bail petition and submitted that the information was received that the narcotic substance was being carried on a particular train and the train was a moving train with passengers so obviously they could not conduct the search on the moving train itself and that is why the accused persons including this petitioner was brought to the Platform No. 4 where the search was made of the bodies after noticing them under section 50 of the NDPS Act and thereafter personal search was made so it is the rightful place where the search was made and only because the accused persons including the petitioner were searched on Platform No. 4 that has so been indicated in the Column -2 and there is nothing wrong with that. It is further submitted that the petitioner was also carrying narcotic substance and at least one of the specified narcotic substance was of more than commercial quantity and as per section 37 of the NDPS Act, the prayer for bail should be viewed stringently and not with much leniency. The learned counsel for the State further stated that in a situation where there is a moving train and there is absence of independent witness after due search, then the police became themselves witnesses after compliance of due procedure.

¶18

The learned counsel for the Union of India is also present.

¶19

Having heard both counsels, gone through the records of the case and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to release the petitioner, named above, on bail.

¶20

Accordingly, the bail application of the petitioner, above named, is rejected.

¶21

The learned trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶22

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)

¶23

Sharda/

Lalbabu Choubey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalbabu Choubey v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gautam Kumar Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Prabhakar Kumar Alias Saurabh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nitish Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Aman Sahu Alias Aman Sao Vs the State of Jharkhand

Kaleshwar Murmu Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Alias Rajkumar Chandrawanshi Vs the State of Jharkhand