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

2023 Supreme(UK) 18

RAVINDRA MAITHANI
Kamal Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Vikas Anand, Advocate, V.S. Rathore, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant Kamal Bhatt is in judicial custody in FIR No.293 of 2021, under Sections 8/20/60 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances, 1985, Police Station Kathgodam, District Nainital. He has sought short term bail on the ground of his illness.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant appeared through video conferencing.

3. It is argued by learned counsel for the applicant that earlier also, the applicant was granted short term bail. He is a heart patient. Last time, his time extension application was rejected. He is in custody, unwell and have been shifted to District Jail, Haridwar. He is not getting the kind of treatment, as prescribed.

4. Learned State Counsel was required to get instructions. Today, learned State Counsel gives a statement that, in fact, the applicant is unwell. He has been prescribed for Echocardiography, which is still pending. He would submit that as per report, as and when the Guard would be available, the applicant would be sent for Echocardiography.

5. Medical treatment cannot wait for arrival of Guards. Guards should, in fact, run fast in such cases.

6. Without adv

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