Petitioner in custody sought bail in an NDPS case. Bail was denied because evidence could not be recorded. Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within three months to address delay concerns.
Petitioner directed to conclude trial within three months; otherwise, file return.
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.
BLAPL No.2067 of 2017
The petitioner being in custody in Special Case No.29 of 2012, arising out of Chhendipada P.S. Case No.122 of 2012, pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Angul, has filed this petition for his release on bail. The offence alleged against him is punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985.
Since the Investigating Officer having been appeared, but the evidence could not be recorded due to absence of P.O., I am not inclined to release the petitioner on bail on the ground of inordinate delay in trial.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands dismissed.
However, learned trial court is directed to take all effective steps to conclude the trial within a period of three months hence.
………………… S.Pujahari, J.
DA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail can be granted despite investigative evidence not being recorded due to absence of a police officer.
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial within a specific timeframe to prevent inordinate delay.
Special Case No.29 of 2012 Petitioner
State
S. Pujahari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
