AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 230 wordsV. Narasingh, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is an accused in connection with Special G.R. Case No.95 of 2023, pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, arising out of Malkangiri P.S. Case No.181 of 2023 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/25/29 of the NDPS Act for possessing contraband to the tune of 40 kg ganja.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri by order dated 04.04.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
Taking into account the contraband seized is to the tune of 40 kg, this Court is of the considered view that in terms of the stipulation in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, it would not be prudent to consider the application for bail, during currency of investigation, without having the benefit of evaluation of incriminating materials qua the petitioner, post charge sheet by the learned Court in seisin.
The petitioner is at liberty to move the learned Court in seisin after filing of charge sheet. If such an application is moved, same shall be considered on its own merits without being influenced by the earlier rejection or the order passed by this Court.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stand disposed of.
……………………………