High CourtsSingle Bench

Ritika Raj @ Nikki Kumari vs State Of Jharkhand

Jharkhand High Court · Decided on 2 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 JH CK 0033

HON’BLE JUDGES
Anil Kumar Choudhary, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Section 18C, 27(b)(II) · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20, 22, 37
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Bail Application No. 2074 Of 2021
Ask AI about this case

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

31 paragraphs · 706 words

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 Sukhdeonagar P.S. Case No.577 of 2020 registered under sections Section

18C/27 (b) (II) of Drug and Cosmetic Act and under Section 20/22 of NDPS Act.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was in illegal possession of 14 bottles of

corex wings cough syrup of 100 ml each, 6 strips of Nitosun-1 (20 tablets in each strip) and 16 pieces of Pentazosine Lactate Injection I.P. It is

further submitted that the allegations against the petitioner are all false and there is discrepancy in the name of syrup seized and as mentioned in the

complaint, as in the seizure list, it has been mentioned as ""corex wings"" but in the complaint, the name of the syrup has been mentioned as 'wincirex'. It

is then submitted that at the time of remand, the petitioner complained that she was not produced within 24 hours of her arrest before the trial court

and the explanation furnished by police is that there was delay in obtaining COVID-19 test result. It is then submitted that the petitioner is a female

and she is ready to abide by any conditions. It is next submitted that the petitioner has been in custody for a considerable period of time. Hence, it is

submitted that the petitioner be admitted to bail.

Learned Spl. P.P. appearing for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for bail and drawing attention of this Court towards Sl.no. 239 (4) of the

Table under Clause (viia) and (xxiiia) of sub clause 2 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, which reads as under :

The quantities shown in column 5 and column 6 of the Table relating to the respective drugs shown in column 2 shall apply to the entire mixture or

any solution or anyone or more narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances of that particular drug in dosage form or isomers, esters, ethers and salts of

these drugs, including salts of esters, ethers and isomers, wherever existence of such substance is possible and not just its pure drug content.

submits that the quantity of the mixture and solution is to be taken into consideration to find out whether it is a commercial quantity or not hence, on

the basis of Sl.no. 239 (4) of the Table under Clause (viia) and (xxiiia) of sub clause 2 of N.D.P.S. Act, 1985, the seized articles being 1.4 L of syrup

containing codeine, comes under the commercial quantity hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 is attracted in this case and in the

absence of any material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations and that there is no chance of him being not involved in any

offence while on bail, the petitioner ought not be released on bail.

Considering the serious nature of allegation against the petitioner and recovery of narcotic substance in commercial quantity and in the absence of any

material to suggest that the petitioner is not guilty of the allegations or that there is no chance of his not committing any offence if released on bail, this

Court is of the 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 COVID19 pandemic.