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
13 paragraphs · 298 wordsV. Narasingh, J
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
The Petitioner is an accused in connection with C.T. Case No.10 of 2022 (NDPS), pending in the Court of the learned arising out of Jaipatna P.S. Case No.186 of 2022, for alleged commission of offences under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of NDPS Act.
Learned counsel, on instruction, submits that except the present BLAPL, no other bail application of the Petitioner relating to the aforementioned P.S. Case is pending in any other Court.
Being aggrieved by the rejection of his application for bail U/s.439 Cr.P.C. by the learned Special Judge, Dharamgarh by order dated 04.01.2023 in the aforementioned case, the present BLAPL has been filed.
It is submitted by the learned counsel that taking into account the period of custody being more than one and half years, the Petitioner may be released on bail.
Learned counsel for the State opposes the prayer for bail relying on the property seizure memo which is on record.
The allegation against the Petitioner is that the contraband to the tune of 427Kgs 720gms (ganja) was seized from a Mahindra Bolero vehicle bearing No.OD-08-L-6226 in which the Petitioner was an occupant.
It is brought to the notice of this Court that the bail application of the co-accused Shankar Dhangada Majhi has been rejected by this Court by order dated 12.12.2023 in BLAPL No.3122 of 2023.
Considering the nature of allegation and keeping in view the bar contained in Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to entertain the bail application at this stage.
Taking into account the period of custody, learned Court in seisin is requested to expedite the trial.
Accordingly, the BLAPL stands disposed of.
……………………………