Etwa Munda vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioner personally undertakes to remove the defects as pointed out by the

stamp reporter within two weeks after the lockdown period is over.

In view of the personal undertaking of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the defects pointed out by the stamp reporter are ignored for the present.

The petitioner has moved this Court for grant of bail in connection with Arki P.S. Case No.09 of 2020 (NDPS Case No.05 of 2020) registered under

sections 8/18 of NDPS Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was cultivating opium over five decimals of

land. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since

09.02.2020 as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 10 of the bail application. It is lastly submitted that the petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the

trial of the case. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

The learned Spl.P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that opium crop over five decimals of land brings the total

amount opium cultivation under the commercial quantity therefore the rigors of Section 37 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

1985 is attracted in this case therefore, in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence or that he will not

indulge in any offence while on bail. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner ought not to be admitted to bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner of cultivating opium crop over a large patch of land involving commercial quantity

and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence or that he will not indulge in any offence if released on bail,

this Court is of the considered view that this is not a fit case where the above named petitioner be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the prayer for regular

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.