Awdhesh Kumar @ Awadhesh Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through Video Conferencing.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter within two weeks after the

lockdown is over.

In view of the personal undertaking given by learned senior counsel for the petitioner the defects pointed out by the Stamp Reporter are ignored for

the present.

The petitioner has been made accused in connection with Rajpur P.S. case no. 60 of 2020 instituted under sections 18 of NDPS Act.

Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that police recovered a bag containing 6.4 kg of

opium from the petitioner. It is then submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegation against the petitioner is false. It is further

submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the allegation that two persons riding on motorcycle, handed over the bag to the petitioner is

highly improbable. It is further submitted by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in jail custody for a considerable

period of time, hence, the petitioner may be released on bail.

Learned Spl. P.P. vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the report of the FSL, on physical and chemical examination, morphine

and alkaloids of opium were detected in the contents of the sample which were sent for physical and chemical examination and in view of the fact,

that the seized opium was of commercial quantity, rigors of section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act is attracted in this case

and in absence of any material to show that the petitioner is not guilty of the alleged offence and in the absence of any material show that there is no

chance of the petitioner being involved in any offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not be released on bail.

Considering the serious allegation against the petitioner of transporting opium of commercial quantity, in absence of any material to suggest that

petitioner is not guilty of the offences alleged and that there is no chance of the petitioners being involved in any offence while on bail, this Court is of

considered view that this is not a fit case where the petitioner be released on bail. Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the above named petitioner is

rejected.

Keeping in view the period of custody undergone by the petitioner and the serious nature of offences involved in this case, notwithstanding any order

in administrative side of this Court, the trial court is directed to take up the trial of the case expeditiously and to conclude the trial within six months

from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court. It is made clear that the trial be conducted and witnesses be examined by observing the

precautions relating to COVID-19 pandemic.