IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr). No.180 of 2021 ------ Chandan Kumar, aged about 29 years, son of Nirmal Kumar Dangi, resident of village Nagwan Muhalla, P.O. & P.S. Sadar, District Chatra. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through Director General of Police Jharkhand, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi 2. Superintendent of Police, P.O., P.S. & District- Chatra. 3. Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.O., P.S. & District- Chatra. 4. Officer-in-Charge, Sadar Police Station, P.O., P.S. & District- Chatra. 5. Investigating Officer of Sadar P.S. Case No.129 of 2021, P.O., P.S. & District- Chatra .... .... .... Respondents ------ CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Sabyasanchi, Advocate For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr. Yadav, Sr. SC I Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to Sr. SC I ------ Order No.11 Dated- 29-01-2025 Heard the parties. 2. This Writ Petition (Cr.) has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the respondents to file show cause and explain as to why the respondent No.5 of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) being the Investigating Officer of Sadar P.S. Case No.129 of 2021, P.O., P.S. & District- Chatra, kept the petitioner for detention for 56 hours before producing him before the Magistrate concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the police personnel came to the house of the petitioner at 4:00 pm on 10.06.2021 and asked the petitioner to come with them but later on they made the petitioner an accused of Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.129 of 2021 involving the offence punishable under Section 21/22 of the N.D.P.S. Act read with Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. It is next submitted that the petitioner is a practicing advocate of Chatra Bar but still he was kept in police lock-up and was not given the right to meet his advocate nor was he provided the facility to talk to his family members and advocates in violation of the provisions of law. It is next submitted that the petitioner was produced before the court at 10:00 pm on 12.06.2021 but the distance of Civil Court is one (1) Kilometer from the police station. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer, as prayed for by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) be allowed. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent- State on the other hand submits that the learned In-Charge (Special Judge- N.D.P.S. Cases), Chatra took note of the fact that the petitioner was arrested on 10.06.2021 between 4:40 pm to 11:30 pm but was produced before the court of In-Charge (Special Judge- N.D.P.S. Cases), Chatra on 12.06.2021 and called for an explanation from the respondent Nos.4 and 5 of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.). It is next submitted that the respondent Nos.4 and 5 of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) have submitted their explanation mentioning therein that as per the direction of this court in administrative side, the accused persons of the cases were to be produced before the judicial officers, after getting the COVID-19 Test Report negative and sometime was consumed in obtaining the COVID-19 Test Report of the petitioner and the co-accused persons, hence, the said delay occurred and in view of the extraordinary situation prevalent at the time of COVID-19 pandemic, the explanation of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 of the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) has been accepted by the order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Special Judge- N.D.P.S. Cases, Chatra Sadar in Chatra Sadar P.S. Case No.129 of 2021 and the said order is not under challenge. Hence, it is submitted that as the competent court of law has accepted the said explanation, which is not under challenge, therefore, the prayer made in the instant Writ Petition (Cr.) has become infructuous. Hence, it is submitted that this Writ Petition (Cr.), being without any merit, be dismissed. 5. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of this Court to withdraw this Writ Petition (Cr.) with liberty to seek appropriate remedy. 6. Permission is accorded. 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition (Cr.) stands dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) AFR-Animesh/