Petitioner challenged refusal of bail in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity recovery. Court refused bail citing nature of allegation and commercial quantity attracting legal embargo, directing expedited trial.
Prayer for bail refused; petitioner to remain in custody pending trial.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16040 of 2021
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2020 Thana- D.R.I District- Patna
======================================================
DHARMESH JHA, SON OF LATE RAM UDGAR JHA, R/o Ward No. 3, Udapatti, P.O. - Bathua, P.S. - Musarigharari, District - Samstipur
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA
... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Brij Bihari Tiwary, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR ORAL ORDER
4 25-10-2021 Heard the parties.
Petitioner seeks bail in a case registered for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
More than one thousand Kg. i.e. commercial quantity of Ganja was recovered from the cavity of the truck of which the petitioner was driver.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got no criminal antecedent. He is in custody since 01.09.2020. The seizure was not made at the spot nor seizure list was prepared thereat. Moreover, the witnesses are not of the locality. Therefore, evidently, there is non-compliance of mandate of law.
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.16040 of 2021(4) dt.25-10-2021 2/2
recovery is of commercial quantity. Hence, embargo contained under Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is attracted.
Considering the nature of allegation and available material, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail in connection with Special Case No. 128 of 2020 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Patna/successor Court. Hence, prayer for bail is refused.
Learned Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case. The compliance of mandate of law would be considered at the appropriate stage of the trial.
(Birendra Kumar, J)
Kundan/-
U T
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner charged with offences under provisions of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 involving commercial quantity of ganja.
Whether procedural lapses in seizure justify the grant of bail in a case involving commercial quantity of narcotics.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Dharmesh Jha
The Union of India
Birendra Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
