Back
M. S. KARNIK
Alam Bhure Shah – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State.
2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the application for bail.
3. This is an application for bail in respect of an offence punishable under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Pschotrophic Substance Act, 1985 ('NDPS Act' for short), and registered vide FIR No. 8 of 2021. The applicant was arrested on 16/4/2021. The applicant is in custody for more than two years. I am informed that one witness has been examined and two more witnesses are to be examined. However, it is submitted that the trial is not proceeding as the Court is vacant. The applicant was found in possession of 1.100 grams of charas, the commercial quantity stipulated is 1.000 kg of charas. The rigors of Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act, therefore, would be attracted. For the quantity found and the fact that there are no criminal antecedents against the applicant, would have otherwise been a good ground to release the applicant on bail. However, the twin conditions of Sec. 37 would have to be satisfied. The trial, undoubtedly, will take some time to complete and the appl
The judgment established that the prolonged incarceration and the absence of criminal antecedents can be considered in granting bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, even in cases involving commerci....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply when the quantity of contraband falls within an intermediate category, and the principles fo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of the NDPS Act, particularly the definitions of commercial and small quantities, and the applicability of Sec....
Prolonged incarceration without trial can lead to the violation of the fundamental right to liberty, allowing for the possibility of bail despite statutory restrictions under the NDPS Act.
The court emphasized that under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless there are reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit further offences.
Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as accused failed twin conditions of Section 37: no reasonable grounds to believe not guilty given prima facie conscious possession via concealment attemp....
Bail denied in NDPS commercial quantity case as vehicle occupants prima facie in conscious possession of contraband; twin conditions under Section 37 not satisfied despite trial delay.
Bail in NDPS commercial quantity cases mandates twin conditions under Section 37: reasonable grounds (substantial probable cause) for believing accused not guilty and unlikely to reoffend; mere innoc....
The court underscored the stringent bail conditions under the NDPS Act, demanding substantial evidence to justify release for defendants in drug-related cases.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
