Pradeep Mandal @ Pradip Mandal vs State Of Jharkhand

Heard the parties through video conferencing. Learned Senior Advocate appearing 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 Senior Advocate appearing 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 N.D.P.S. Case No.02 of 2020 arising out of Littipara P.S. Case No.13 of 2020

registered under sections 25(1b) a/26(1) of Arms Act and under Section 18 (b) of NDPS Act, 1985.

The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was found travelling in a

car and from the dickey of the car, 27 kg and 120 grams of opium was recovered. It is further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are

all false and the seizure list is an antedated one. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time and the

petitioner has no criminal antecedent as has been mentioned in paragraph no. 15 of the bail application. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner be

admitted to bail.

The learned Addl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and submits that in the F.S.L. report, morphine and other alkaloids of

opium has been found in the contents of the sample which was sent for physical and chemical examination. It is next submitted that since the seized

opium is in commercial quantity hence the rigors of Section 37 of Narcotic and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is attracted in this case hence, and

in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the fence are released and that there is no chance of the petitioner being

involved in similar type of 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 being involved in transporting and found in possession of opium in commercial

quantity and in the absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence alleged or that there is no chance of the petitioner

being involved in similar type of offence while 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.