Dismissed

Hakkani Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC11 Nov 2024B.A./5941/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Third bail application in an NDPS case after two prior rejections; the court rejected it, holding prolonged custody and part-examination of witnesses were not new grounds, but directed the trial court to conclude the trial within two months without unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Bail prayer rejected; trial court directed to conclude trial within two months from receipt of order.

Hakkani Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Narcotics (NDPS) | Jharkhand HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI B.A. No.5941 of 2024

¶2

Hakkani Ansari, Age: 46 years, S/O Haji Badruddin Ansari, R/O: Kotam, P.O. Kotam, P.S. Gumla, District Gumla-835233, Jharkhand

¶3

..... … Petitioner

¶4

Versus The State of Jharkhand …. …. Opp. Party -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND -----For the Petitioner : Mr. Asif Khan, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, A.P.P. --------

¶5

05/11^th November, 2024

¶6

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶7

2. This third bail petition has been filed on behalf of the abovenamed petitioner with prayer to release on bail in connection with N.D.P.S. Case No.11 of 2022 arising out of Gumla P.S. Case No.23 of 2022 registered under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Act and Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act pending in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Gumla.

¶8

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that earlier the prayers for bail of the petitioner has been rejected twice by this Court; firstly vide order dated 5^th July, 2022 passed in B.A. No.3693 of 2022 and secondly vide order dated 25^th August, 2023 passed in B.A. No.12325 of 2022. By way of present bail petition, the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail on the ground that petitioner has been languishing in jail for more than two and half years. It is further submitted that out of six charge-sheeted witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and only two witnesses are left to be examined. In view of the aforesaid submissions, contended to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶9

4. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

5. From record, it appears that the first bail petition of the petitioner was rejected on merit by this Bench and thereafter the second bail

¶11

petition was also rejected.

¶12

6. The plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as a new ground for consideration of third bail application. Accordingly, this bail petition is, hereby, rejected.

¶13

7. However taking into consideration that out of six witnesses, four witnesses have been examined and only two are left to be examined, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is made clear that no unnecessary adjournment shall be granted by the trail court at the instance of either side.

¶14

(Subhash Chand, J.)

¶15

Rohit

¶16

Hakkani Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hakkani Ansari 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

Shyam Sundar Mittal Vs Anup Kumar Mittal

Rani Rupam Vs Gopal Chandra Sanyal

Jimutbahan Bhandari Alias Mandal Vs Bishwanath Mandal

Sajjad Khan Alias Tanda Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sajan Kumar Alias Sajan Sah Alias Sajan Kumar Sah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Harendra Nath Sahu Vs Thurka Manjhi Alias Turka Manjhi