Back
Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Parihar, JJ
Riyaz Ahmad Hajam – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of charges, arrests, and the procedural history regarding bail applications. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments concerning the validity of piecemeal investigations and extension provisions in special legislations. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. examination of the trial court's authority to grant extension under section 36a of the ndps act. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. establishment that filing charge-sheets within extended periods extinguishes default bail rights regardless of supplementary filings or cognizance timing. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30) |
J U D G M E N T
Sanjay Parihar-J
1. This appeal, in terms of Section 21 of the NIA Act, calls in question the orders dated 27.05.2022 and 14.12.2021 passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramulla, Special Court for NIA/UAPA, whereby the prayer of the appellants for grant of default bail came to be rejected, and seeks setting aside of the said orders with a consequential direction for enlargement of the appellants on bail.
2. The appellants contend that the trial court has misread the relevant statutory provisions and erroneously declined th
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
