( 2026:JHHC:26789 ) 1 Cr.M.P. No.2668 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No. 2668 of 2026 Md. Zahid Alam @ Md. Jahid @ Md. Zahid @ Md. Jahid Ahmad, aged about 30 years, son of Riyazudin @ Md. Riyazuddin, Resident of Village –Gidhaur, P.O. & P.S. –Gidhaur, District –Chatra, presently residing at A1 –Sattar Palace, Central Street, P.O. & P.S. –Hindpiri, District –Ranchi. .... Petitioner Versus The State of Jharkhand …. Opposite Party P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. For the Petitioner : Mr. Haider Ali, Advocate For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl. P.P. ….. By the Court:- 1. Heard the parties. 2. This criminal miscellaneous petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S, 2023 with the prayer to quash the order 05.06.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Hazaribagh in N.D.P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 arising out of Katkamsandi (Pelawal O.P.) P.S. Case No. 219 of 2025 involving the offences punishable under Section 18(b)/22(b)/25(a)/29 of the NDPS Act whereby the petition filed by the petitioner claiming the same to be a petition under Section 230(5) of the BNSS with a prayer to call for the Mobile Tower Location Chart of the petitioner has been rejected. Prayer has also been made to quash the order dated 12.06.2026, passed by the learned Additional ( 2026:JHHC:26789 ) 2 Cr.M.P. No.2668 of 2026 Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act, Hazaribagh in N.D.P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 arising out of Katkamsandi (Pelawal O.P.) P.S. Case No. 219 of 2025 whereby the learned trial court did not pass any order on the petition for time dated 12.06.2026 for filing of discharge petition and proceeded to frame charges against the petitioner for having committed the offences punishable under Section 18(b)/22(c) & 29 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the petitioner is the accused of the said case. The petitioner filed a petition under a non-existent provision of law by mentioning the relevant Section under which the petition is filed as 230(5) of the B.N.S.S. The prayer made in the petition was to call for Mobile Tower Location Chart of the petitioner as per para -35 of the case diary as well as that of police personnel and police officers and seizure list witnesses from the concerned service provider/nodal officer from 13:10 hours of 22.10.2025 to 23:59 hours of 23.10.2025. The same was considered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh considered the settled principle of law that the accused cannot compel or interfere with the documents based upon which summoning order is passed nor the accused can insist upon calling for any document at the stage of framing of charge when there are sufficient materials in the record otherwise, to frame charge against the accused person and that is not the stage to consider the plea of alibi of the petitioner and rejected the petition. ( 2026:JHHC:26789 ) 3 Cr.M.P. No.2668 of 2026 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India, reported in (2014) 0 Supreme (SC) 981 that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the facts of that case directed the trial court to summon from the companies concerned, the call details of sim of telephone number mentioned in that order. It is next submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh, also did not consider the time petition, filed by the petitioner after charges were framed, to discharge him in this case. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this criminal miscellaneous petition be allowed. 5. The learned Spl. P.P. on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer and submits that the stage of defence evidence has not arrived in the present case. In the present case, as is evident, charges were framed against the petitioner only on 12.06.2026 i.e. after rejection of the petition on 05.06.2026. So on 05.06.2026, charges were not even framed. So at that stage, the petitioner has no locus-standi to call for any document because charges is to be framed based on the materials placed by the prosecution and not upon the defence of the accused. It is further submitted that the petitioner who was assisted by a lawyer in the trial court, mischievously filed the petition by mentioning a non-existent provision of law i.e. Section 230(5) of the B.N.S.S. It is next submitted that so far as the order dated 12.06.2026 is concerned, ( 2026:JHHC:26789 ) 4 Cr.M.P. No.2668 of 2026 the perusal of the said order itself discloses that charges were framed only after the defence counsel orally submitted that they are not interested to file discharge petition but after the charges were framed, again as part of playing mischief, later on, a time petition was filed praying for time to file discharge petition but as by the time, the time petition was filed, charges were already framed, there was obviously no scope for the trial court to grant time to the petitioner, who is the accused person of the case, to file the discharge petition as by then, charges were already framed against him. Hence, fairly the learned Additional Sessions Judge- III, Hazaribagh has just passed the order to keep the time petition on the record. It is next submitted that there is absolutely no illegality in the orders dated 05.06.2026 or 12.06.2026. Hence, it is submitted that this criminal miscellaneous petition being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that certainly the provision of law i.e. Section 230(5) B.N.S.S. is a non-existent provision of law. The prayer made in the petition of the petitioner, which was disposed of by the said order dated 05.06.2026, was to call for the Mobile Tower Location Chart as per para-35 of the case diary and the police personnel and police officers unlike the case of Suresh Kumar Vs. Union of India (supra) where the accused persons came with the detailed phone numbers by mentioning the sim of the telephone numbers, ( 2026:JHHC:26789 ) 5 Cr.M.P. No.2668 of 2026 that too, obviously at the stage of defence evidence; in this case, there is no reference of any sim of any telephone number. There is no reference to the name of any police personnel or any police officers. Without any specific name, the term “police personnel and police officers” are vague terms. As has rightly been observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh, certainly at the stage of consideration of framing of charge or before that, the accused cannot be given any opportunity to put forth his defence. Certainly, after recording of the prosecution evidence and recording the statement of the accused, if any, under Section 351 of the B.N.S.S., the accused is to be given an opportunity to adduce the defence evidence, if he so chooses and at that stage, certainly, the accused has the option to call for relevant piece of evidence, specifically mentioning, if at all such evidence exists. But by the order dated 05.06.2026, such a prayer being pre-mature that too a vague one without mentioning any sim number of any telephone number and even not mentioning the name of the persons, this Court is of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh in passing the said impugned order dated 05.06.2026. 7. So far as the order dated 12.06.2026 is concerned, this Court finds that the learned Additional Sessions Judge –III, Hazaribagh has in no uncertain manner mentioned in the order itself that she framed the charges against the petitioner only after the learned ( 2026:JHHC:26789 ) 6 Cr.M.P. No.2668 of 2026 defence counsel verbally submitted that they are not interested to file discharge petition for the accused persons. The perusal of the record reveals that the case was fixed to 12.06.2026 for framing of the charge. There is no rhyme or reason why the petitioner who has been in custody for a considerable period of time as the petitioner was arrested sometime between 22.10.2025 to 23.10.2025, hence, he could not file the petition for discharge if at all they were interested for the same and charge sheet was submitted on 30.11.2025 as mentioned in para-9 of the brief and obviously they were having the police papers for over six months with them. Be that as it may, it is crystal clear from the order dated 12.06.2026 that the time petition was filed obviously with a mischievous intention, after the charge was framed, so later on an order sheet was fairly drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III but by the time, time petition was filed, since charges were already framed in open court and the charges were read over and explained to the accused person in Hindi to which he understood and pleaded not guilty. So obviously, there was no way the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh could have granted time to file a discharge petition, after framing of the charge. So no illegality has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Hazaribagh in passing the order to keep the time petition in the record as the same could not be allowed in any way. ( 2026:JHHC:26789 ) 7 Cr.M.P. No.2668 of 2026 8. In view of the discussions made above, as there is no illegality in either of the orders dated 05.06.2026 or 12.06.2026, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Special Judge, NDPS Act, Hazaribagh in N.D.P.S. Case No. 74 of 2025 arising out of Katkamsandi (Pelawal O.P.) P.S. Case No. 219 of 2025. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that there is no justifiable reason to interfere with the same in exercise of its power under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023. 9. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition being without of any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 31st August, 2026 AFR/Sonu- Uploaded on 11.09.2026