RIDAY MAHTO Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is accused for the offences under Sections 15, 16 and 27 (A) of the N. D. P. S. Act.

(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the instant case is totally misconceived against the petitioner, who has as no concern with the land in question in this case and cultivation of the alleged poppy crops. Furthermore, there is no allegation that any narcotic substance was recovered from the petitioner's possession. Rather, the allegation of recovery is against the co-accused Mukesh Mahto and allegation of cultivating the poppy plants is against Bhukhlal mahto. Even though the petitioner has also been made accused for cultivating the poppy plants and the co-accused against whom the allegations are same as against the petitioner has been granted bail by the order of this Court passed in B. A. No. 3326 of 2008 and the petitioner who is in custody since 27. 02. 2008, also deserves the same privilege.