Dismissed¶15

Guddu Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC19 Sept 2024B.A./4561/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application B.A. 4561 of 2024, High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi, decided 19.09.2024 by Rajesh Kumar, J.; prayer for regular bail rejected on ground of commercial quantity of narcotics; charge framed under Section 21(c) N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and Section 27(d) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940; registration offences included IPC Sections 276/406/417/34, Section 27(d) Drugs and Cosmetics Act, Sections 21 and 22 N.D.P.S. Act; Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 260 of 2023 / Drugs and Cosmetic Case No. 01 of 2024; applicant Guddu Kumar Verma in custody since 03.09.2023; parallel case B.A. No. 1493 of 2024 (bail granted 04.04.2024) cited by counsel.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for regular bail was rejected: considering the commercial quantity of narcotics, the judge was not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail at this stage. ¶15

Guddu Kumar Verma Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B. A. No. 4561 of 2024

¶2

....

¶3

Guddu Kumar Verma, Aged about 33 years, Son of Late Nandu Verma, resident of Near Shishu Mandir School, Court Road, Palmerganj, Lohardaga, P.O. & P.S. & District-Lohardaga (Jharkhand)

¶4

.… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Jharkhand .... Opposite Party

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Nilesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. B.N.Ojha, A.P.P. ....

¶9

08/19.09.2024

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶11

The applicant who is in custody since 03.09.2023 has approached this Court for grant of regular bail in connection with Lohardaga P.S. Case No.260 of 2023, corresponding to Drugs and Cosmetic Case No.01 of 2024, registered for the offence under Sections 276/ 406/ 417/34 of IPC, Section 27(d) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and Sections 21 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, pending in the court of learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Lohardaga. Charge has been framed under Section 21(c) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 and under Section 27(d) of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

¶12

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant(s) that complete set of F.I.R. alongwith its enclosure have been annexed with this bail application and there is no suppression on his/her part .

¶13

Innocence has been claimed and undertaking has been given for participation in the trial. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the recovery is doubtful. For the alleged recovery, two separate case has been lodged. In one of the case, he has already been granted bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.04.2024 passed in B.A. No.1493 of 2024. On above basis prayer for bail has been made.

¶14

Learned A.P.P. has opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

¶15

Considering the commercial quantity of narcotics, I am not inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail, at this stage. Accordingly, prayer for bail of the applicant stands rejected.

¶16

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶17

Shahid/ uploaded

Guddu Kumar Verma v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddu Kumar Verma 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

Baiju Sao Vs Collectariate

Suresh Manjhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Raj Kumar Sao Alias Raj Kumar Prasad Keshri Vs Collectariate

Satya Kisku Vs the State of Jharkhand

Mukesh Mirdha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vishawnath Chaudhary Vs the State of Jharkhand