ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL
Randhir – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. This is a second bail application. By means of this application, applicant-Randhir, who is involved in Case Crime No. 660 of 2023 (S.T. No. 33 of 2024), under Section 8/20 of N.D.P.S. Act, Police Station - Robertsganj, District - Sonbhadra, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
3. The first bail application of the applicant being Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3333 of 2024 was rejected on 12.08.2024 and following order was passed:-
“1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. By means of the present bail application, the applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.660 of 2023, under Section 8/20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “NDPS Act”), Police Station - Robertsganj, District- Sonbhadra, during the pendency of trial.
3. The prosecution story as unfolded from the First Information Report (FIR) is that Contraband (Ganja) has been recovered from DCM Truck No.HR45 B3831 in eight packets, total weight 151.600 kgs. When the police had intercepted the vehicle at Robertsganj, Sonbhadra, the dri
Central Bureau of Investigation vs. R.S. Pai & Anr.
Babu Singh & Others vs. State of U.P.
Vinay Kumar @ Vicky vs. State of Haryana
Pooran Mal vs. Director of Inspection (Investigation) New Delhi and others
State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172. (Para 10) – Relied.
State of H.P. vs. Pirthi Chand and Another (1996) 2 SCC 37. (Para 10) – Relied.
State of Punjab vs. Makhan Chand (2004) 3 SCC 453. (Para 10) – Relied.
Union of India vs. Mohanlal and Another (2016) 3 SCC 379. (Para 11) – Relied.
Mohammed Khalid and Another vs. State of Telangana (2024) 5 SCC 393. (Para 12) – Relied.
Drug offence – Once Investigating Officer has found sufficient evidence to prosecute accused for offence for which First Information Report has been registered, FSL report would only be corroborative....
Bail under NDPS Act requires proof of innocence and non-reoffending risk; stringent standards apply due to the serious nature of drug offenses.
The court emphasized that bail under the NDPS Act requires satisfaction of two conditions: reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty and that he is not likely to commit an offence wh....
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 central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of conscious possession, joint possession, and compliance with procedural requirements under the NDPS Act in determining bail e....
Procedural compliance under the NDPS Act is crucial; failure to adhere to sampling and inventory requirements can undermine the prosecution's case and justify bail.
petitioner cannot be extended benefit of bail on the ground that reduction in weight of the contraband seized was noticed at the time of certification by the Magistrate under Section 52A than the wei....
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 court emphasized the importance of compliance with procedural safeguards in drug-related cases, granting bail due to significant delays and procedural lapses.
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.