SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

A.R.TIWARI
Om Prakash – Appellant
Versus
State of Madhay Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the parties:
For the Applicant - Jai Singh.
For the State - G. Desai.

ORDER

A.R. Tiwari, J.

2. The applicant is arrested and detained in Crime No. 1/93 registered at P.S. Mhow pertaining to an offence punishable under section 8/18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (For short 'Act') and by this application, seeks restoration of his liberty on appropriate bail-bond.

3. Liberty occupies a place of pride in a free country. Yet it must inevitably suffer an eclipse when it is found to be clashing with the interests of the society. The aforesaid Act is designed to combat the growing menace and as such, has drastic measures. Section 37 of the Act accordingly contains the constraints in matter of bail.

4. As to the facts, it is enough to notice that the case-diary contains a memo of arrest reciting that the applicant was arrested on being found in possession of 27 grams of Charas (Cannabishemp); However, the case, destructive of this recital, speaks about the possession of opium.

5. In the face of this incongruity, this Court required the presence of the author of the aforesaid memo. He appeared, but was unable to tear up the tenebrosity and simple sought shelter of the umbrella, conceiving it as protective, of the statement of bona fide e

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top