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

2008 Supreme(Ker) 113

R.BASANT
Mathew @ Raju – Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:K.K. Chandran Pillai, Advocate. For the Respondents: Public Prosecutor.

Judgment :

Is the offence punishable under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) a bailable or a non-bailable one ? This is the bone of contention in this application for bail.

2. The facts are simple. The first accused was allegedly involved in cultivation of ganja punishable under Section 20(1)(A) of the Act. He was apprehended. His statement was recorded. It was revealed that some time earlier, the first accused had sold to the petitioner and the petitioner had purchased 500 grams of dried ganja. The petitioner was also proceeded against. He was arrested on 11.2008. He continues in custody from that date.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(A) is bailable and the detention of the petitioner, who is willing to offer bail, is unjustified.

4. The learned Prosecutor, on the contrary, contends that Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act declares all offences under the N.D.P.S. Act to be non-bailable and therefore notwithstanding the fact that Section 37(1)(b) is not applicable, the offence continues to be a non-bailable offence and the Prosecutor is justified in opposing the application. The learned Prosecutor submits that the declaration that the offence








































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