9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Abetment of criminal conspiracy to possess and sell cannabis ganja and manufactured drugs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. - Bail application rejection based on Section 37(1)(b) of the Act. - Challenges in facilitating trials due to accused persons being in different locations. Abetment of Criminal Conspiracy: The petitioner was charged with abetting the commission of the offense by individuals involved in a criminal conspiracy to possess and sell cannabis ganja and manufactured drugs under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The case originated from the seizure of contraband from Md. Diwan, who implicated Azad Parvez. The petitioner was later implicated based on statements linking him to Azad Parvez. The trial involved multiple accused persons, with some absconding. The Special Judge at Balasore split the case into two, leading to charges being framed against six accused persons, including the petitioner. Witnesses did not directly implicate the petitioner, but his involvement was alleged based on associations. Bail Application Rejection: The petitioner's bail application was rejected based on Section 37(1)(b) of the Act, which requires reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and not likely to commit further offenses while on bail. The court emphasized the importance of balancing an individual's liberty with societal interests, especially in cases involving narcotic drugs. The court found that the allegations, if proven, could result in the petitioner's conviction. Thus, keeping individuals involved in such activities behind bars during trial was deemed essential for societal safety. Challenges in Facilitating Trials: The judgment highlighted challenges in facilitating trials due to accused persons being in different locations. The Special Judge in Balasore requested the transfer of an accused from Howrah for trial, but faced difficulties. The judgment urged State Governments to make arrangements for trials involving multiple accused persons in one location to expedite proceedings. The High Courts of Orissa and Calcutta were directed to examine and provide appropriate directions for the expeditious disposal of cases involving accused persons in different locations. The judgment emphasized the need for coordination and cooperation to ensure effective trial proceedings. In conclusion, the petition was dismissed, subject to the observations made regarding the challenges in facilitating trials and the need for coordination between State Governments and High Courts to streamline trial proceedings involving multiple accused persons in different locations.
|
