Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

THE STATE OF JHARKHAND versus SUNNY KUMAR @ SUNNY KUMAR SAO

Decided
2 February 2025
Judges listed
BELA M. TRIVEDI, PRASANNA BHALACHANDRA VARALE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 619 · 2025 INSC 153

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

Leave granted.

p. 620

2

The present appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in B.A.No. 9276 of 2022, whereby the High Court had allowed the said application filed by the respondent-accused seeking bail in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police Station- Sadar, District- Chatra, Jharkhand for the offence punishable under Section-18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘the NDPS Act’).

p. 620

3

It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-State that after the release of the respondent-accused on bail, vide the impugned order dated 24.11.2022 passed by the High Court, the respondent-accused was involved in another case under the NDPS Act, and was also arrested for the same on 12.07.2023. He also submitted that the trial in respect of the present appeal, has already commenced and only three witnesses have remained to be examined.

p. 620

4

However, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused submitted that the recovery of the alleged contraband was not of commercial quantity and it was only of an intermediate quantity, and therefore, the rigors of Section-37 would not be applicable to the instant case. She also submitted that the appellant-State has challenged the very order granting the respondent-accused bail, and it is not a case of cancellation of bail on the ground of breach of any of the bail conditions. She has conceded that at present, the respondent-accused is under arrest in connection with other offence punishable under the NDPS Act, registered after the present one.

p. 620

5

Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and to the nature of the offence as also the fact that the respondent-accused has been arrested in a similar offence under the NDPS Act, we deem it appropriate to set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court.

p. 621

6

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 24.11.2022, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand, is set aside. The respondent-accused is directed to be taken into custody in connection with Case No. 231 of 2022, registered at Police Station-Sadar, District-Chatra, Jharkhand. However, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and conclude the same in accordance with law, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

p. 621

7

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

p. 621

8

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed. Result of the case: Appeal allowed. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain

p. 621