SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Vimal Rajput – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Subhash Vidyarthi J.—Heard Sri Sumeet Tahilramani, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ranvijay Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 0029 of 2024, under Sections 8/20/23/29/68 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS Act’), registered at Police Station Purakalandar, District Ayodhya.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 28.01.2024 by the Station House Officer against five persons, including the applicant, stating that on the basis of information received from a mukhbir a team of police officers had intercepted a four wheeler vehicle in which four persons, including the applicant were travelling. Different quantities of charas were being carried by all the accused persons and 7 kgs. charas packed in 14 bags containing 500 grams each was recovered from a bag being carried by the applicant.
4. The recovery memo states that a single sample weighing 166 grams was taken out from the 14 packets of charas recovered from the possession of the applicant.
5. In the affida
State by the Inspector of Police vs. B. Ramu, 2024 INSC 114, S.L.P. Crl. No.8137 of 2022
Court has to interpret provisions contained in Sections 36-A and 37 of NDPS Act collectively so as to give “force and life” to intention of legislature behind inserting Section 36-A(3) in the Act.
Strict adherence to statutory procedures is essential in drug-related offenses, and the failure thereof can undermine prosecution's case and infringe upon personal liberty.
Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, and failure to adhere to these provisions can lead to the grant of bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the impact of delay in trial on the accused's right to liberty, especially in cases governed by stringent bail conditions under special acts like t....
Procedural compliance in the NDPS Act is crucial for the admissibility of evidence, impacting the court's discretion in granting bail.
The court reaffirmed that non-compliance with procedural safeguards under the NDPS Act, particularly Section 52A, does not automatically entitle an accused to bail; the court must still find reasonab....
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, ruling that non-compliance can render evidence inadmissible and affect bail decisions.
Procedural non-compliance in drug seizure cases can lead to bail being granted, especially when the accused has been in custody for an extended period without trial.
The court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, granting bail due to significant delays and procedural lapses.
Strict adherence to the NDPS Act's provisions regarding search and seizure is essential; failure to comply can lead to the invalidation of evidence and grant of bail.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.