IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

(Criminal Miscellaneous Jurisdiction)

B.A. No. 7849 of 2021

Tinku Quraishi @ Shahjada Quraishi

….. Petitioner

Versus

The State of Jharkhand

….. Opp. Party

---------

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO

(Through : Video Conferencing)

---------

For the Petitioner

: Mr. Sheo Kumar Singh, Advocate.

For the State

: Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.

---------

02

/Dated: 23/07/2021

Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sheo Kumar

Singh and learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. P.P.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that defect (s)

as pointed out by the Stamp Reporter dated 13.07.2021 will be

removed within 30 days after the physical court starts and has made

prayer to hear the regular bail application of the petitioner, though

there is defect(s) with regard to the difference in the name of the

father of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that

since the prayer for bail of this petitioner has earlier been rejected, as

such, the chances of different accused cannot be sustained, as such,

the defect(s) may presently be ignored and application may be heard.

Considering the same, petitioner is directed to remove the

defect(s) within 30 days after the physical court starts. However, the

bail application is being heard on merit.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner

has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Chainpur P.S. Case

No.275 of 2020 (N.D.P.S. Case No.10 of 2020), for the offence

registered under Sections 21(b), 22 and 31 of NDPS Act and Sections

414/34/120B of IPC on the ground that out of nine witnesses, four

witnesses have been examined, two witnesses are police officers and

two are seizure witnesses and as per their evidence, the case of the

prosecution become doubtful.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner

is in custody since 24.07.2020, as such, petitioner may be enlarged on

bail.

-2-

Learned counsel for the State, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Spl. Public

Prosecutor has submitted that detail order has been passed by this

Court on 06.10.2020 passed in B.A. No.7704/2020.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that

petitioner has been apprehended in connection with Chainpur P.S.

Case No.275 of 2020 (N.D.P.S. Case No.10 of 2020), for the offence

registered under Sections 21(b), 22 and 31 of the NDPS Act and

Sections 414/34/120B IPC from his house and police recovered nine

packet (puriya) of brown sugar, each containing 5.4 grams i.e. total

48 grams of brown sugar kept in one ball, which was kept along with

Rs.1,22,920/-.

Learned counsel for the State has further submitted that

petitioner has also criminal antecedent with regard to similar nature

i.e. Palamau (Town) Case No.207 of 2017 under Sections 20 and 22

of the NDPS Act and Section 17A of Juvenile Justice (Care and

Protection) of Children Act and Garhwa (Town) P.S. Case No.314 of

2020 under Section 21A of the NDPS Act and as such, petitioner may

not be enlarged on bail.

Considering the rival submissions of the parties, looking into

the facts and circumstances of the case that total 48 grams of brown

sugar with cash Rs.1,22,920/- have been recovered and apart from

that petitioner is also accused in the case of NDPS i.e. Palamau

(Town) Case No.207 of 2017 under Sections 20 and 22 of the NDPS

Act and Section 17A of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) of

Children Act and Garhwa (Town) P.S. Case No.314 of 2020 under

Section 21A of the NDPS Act, this Court is not inclined to grant bail

to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is hereby

rejected.

However, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial.

(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)

Sunil-Jay/