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

SANJAY DHAR
Arshad Ahmad Allaie – Appellant
Versus
UT of J&K – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Pranav Kohli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Farhan Mirza, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Aseem Sawhney, AAG.

JUDGMENT

Sanjay Dhar, J.—An important question of law that has arisen in the instant petition is “whether an order granting extension of period of custody of accused beyond 180 days passed by a Sessions Court in terms of Section 36-A of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [“NDPS Act” for short hereinafter] in a case where the accused has been booked for various offences under NDPS Act read with offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [“UA(P) A Act”], is without jurisdiction”.

2. Before answering the aforesaid question, it is necessary to briefly, summarize the facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition.

3. The record of the case shows that the petitioner along with other accused persons was booked in FIR No.38/2019 for offences under Section 8/21/22/27-A/29 NDPS Act and Section 13, 16, 17 and 21 UAPA Act by Police Station, Jammu. Initially the FIR was registered for offences under Section 8/21/22/27-A/29 NDPS Act only and the petitioner was arrested on 27.05.2019. However, during investigation of the case, offences under Section 13, 16, 17 and 21 UAPA Act were added on 30.07.2019.

4. After obtaining initial remand of the accused

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