In a recent court proceeding concerning Thakor Hari Punja, both parties have requested the Magistrates’ Court to enforce a $5,000 cost against the opposing side as they battled over delays and submissions. Magistrate Yogesh Prasad presided over the matter, which centered on Mr. Punja’s application under Section 290(d) of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Mr. Punja is facing serious allegations, including three counts of unlawful possession of illicit drugs. The charges include possession of 0.841 grams of methamphetamine, 5.447 grams of cocaine, and 16.6 grams of cannabis, all from an incident that occurred on May 11, 2024.
The hearing did not proceed as scheduled, primarily due to the state’s failure to submit necessary documentation. Senior State lawyer Eoghn Samisoni’s submission experienced a delay of over 35 days, which defense attorney Iqbal Khan characterized as a significant setback, especially since the State had not provided any explanation or apology for the delay despite repeated court orders.
In court, Mr. Khan requested that the State’s submissions be disregarded and maintained that the court should rely solely on the defense’s points when making its ruling regarding Section 290(d). He also pushed for costs of $5,000 to be imposed on the State, emphasizing the urgency and severity of the situation.
In rebuttal, Mr. Samisoni acknowledged the delay as an oversight but accused the defense of using the Section 290 application as a delaying tactic. He opposed the request for costs and instead sought to impose a $5,000 penalty on the defense, arguing that the voir dire hearing was vacated unjustifiably.
Mr. Samisoni further alleged that the defense had relied on the AI tool, ChatGPT, instead of the proper Police Standing Orders, claiming that their disclosures were improperly copied and pasted. He also stressed that the defense’s application was submitted one year and three months past the appropriate timeline, urging the court to dismiss it and set a new trial date.
Ultimately, Magistrate Prasad decided to vacate the hearing, with the case now adjourned until February 4, 2026. In a notable turn, the court ordered that no costs be imposed on either party, and Mr. Punja’s bail has been extended until the adjourned date.
This case highlights the legal complexities surrounding drug possession charges and the significant implications of procedural delays in the justice system. Both the prosecution and defense face mounting pressure as they navigate the intricacies of their respective arguments and strategies ahead of the next hearing.
Leave a comment