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

2001 Supreme(Ori) 80

L.MOHAPATRA
RUPADHAR PATEL – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.K.PATNAIK, D.P.Dhal, S.PRADHAN, S.S.GHOSH

L. MOHAPATRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS application under Section 439, Cr. P. C. has been filed for grant of bail to the petitioner who has been taken into custody for allegedly committing an offence under Section 20 (a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Prayer of the petitioner having been rejected by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge, Jharsuguda he has approached this Court for bail.

( 2 ) SRI Dhal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that Section 37 of the Act as amended does not stand as a bar for considering the application of the petitioner for bail. In support of such contention, Sri Dhal referring to Section 20 (a) of the Act submitted that punishment prescribed for the offence is for a maximum period of ten years with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees. Referring to Section 37 (b) of the Act, he submitted that the provision prescribed bar in respect of certain offences and those are offences under Section 19 or 24 or 27-A of the Act and the sentence for the aforesaid offence or offence relating to commercial quantity are more than ten years and the legislature Intended that wherever punishment p



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