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
12 paragraphs · 284 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.169 of 2023 pending in the Court of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, arising out of Kalimela Case No.198 of 2023 for commission of offence alleged under Sections 20(b)(ii)(C)/27-A/29 of the NDPS Act.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge-cum-Spl. Judge, Malkangiri by order dated 21.08.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that the Petitioner is in custody since 15.08.2023 on the accusation of possessing contraband (ganja) to the tune of 50 kgs.
It is further submitted that the basis of implication is on account of co-accused statement.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
In view of the stipulations contained in Section 37(1) of the NDPS Act, this Court is of the humble view that it would not be prudent to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, during course of investigation.
Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain this bail application 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.
……………………………