Allowed

Diwankhan S/O Mehboobkhan v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Mangrulpir

Bombay HC28 Mar 2012BA/184/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal application for bail regarding possession of ganja under the N.D.P.S. Act, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, granted conditional bail to the applicant subject to security and undertaking not to tamper with evidence or repeat the offence.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted on executing a Police Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in like amount.

Diwankhan S/O Mehboobkhan Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps… — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

283ba184.12.odt 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION (BA) NO.184 OF 2012

¶4

(Diwankhan Mehboobkhan .vs. State)

¶5

.................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

..................................................................................................................................................................... Mr.A.S.Mardikar, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.A.M.Joshi, A.P.P. for respondent/State.

¶7

CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE, J . DATED : 28th March, 2012.

¶8

Heard.

¶9

The applicant is seeking grant of bail in connection with F.I.R.No.3130 of 2011 reported at Police Station, Mangrulpir, District Washim on 7.9.2011, under Sections 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the alleged ganja seized from the possession of the applicant weighing about 3 kgs. and 200 grams was valued at Rs.19,200/- and certain polythene bags etc. were also seized with total value mentioned as Rs.21,051/-. It is submitted that the quantity of the seized ganja is less than the commercial quantity and there are no criminal antecedents as against the present applicant. It is also submitted that the procedural requirements as to seizure were not observed by the Investigating

¶10

283ba184.12.odt 2

¶11

Officer as required under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act and therefore, benefit of bail ought to be granted to the applicant.

¶12

The learned A.P.P. opposed grant of bail on the ground of seriousness of accusations as also according to him, polythene bags were found at the time of seizure panchanama indicating that the applicant was involved in preparing small packets containing ganja with a view to sell them in the open market.

¶13

I had called upon the learned Advocate for the applicant to furnish full particulars of residence of the applicant and details of two proposed sureties. Considering the submissions advanced before me on 20.3.2012, today, along with the praecipe, copies of documents have been filed along with the affidavit of wife of the applicant namely Nasima Diwankhan Mehmoodkhan, which include family Ration card, election card, certificates from the Gram Panchayat Office, Seloo Bazaar regarding domicile of the applicant and Identity card issued by the Election Commission of India apart from 7/12 extract in respect of the property held by the applicant and names of the proposed sureties indicating their solvency.

¶14

Under these circumstances, I think the applicant may be granted benefit of conditional bail. Hence, the following order.

¶15

283ba184.12.odt 3

¶16

In connection with Crime No.3130 of 2011 reported at Police Station, Mangrulpir, District Washim, u/ss. 20 and 22 of the N.D.P.S. Act, the applicant be released on his executing a P.R. Bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two or more sureties in the like amount.

¶17

The applicant/accused shall attend the Investigating Officer whenever required.

¶18

The applicant shall not carry any weapon nor shall commit any crime while on bail.

¶19

He shall inform his address and change in address, if any, with his Telephone Number/Cell Number, if any, to the Investigating Officer and shall co-operate with him.

¶20

He shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner.

¶21

The Criminal Application is allowed accordingly.

¶22

Hamdast is granted.

¶23

JUDGE

¶24

jais

Diwankhan S/O Mehboobkhan v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Mangrulpir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Diwankhan S/O Mehboobkhan v. State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Mangrulpir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok S/O Jairam Bhojane Vs State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Jaulka and Othres

Subhash S/O Baburao Tumde (in Jail) Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Pso, Ps Durgapur

Deepak S/O Kuldeep Kambale Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Ps Dhad

State of Mah. Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Mohadi Vs Deoram S/O Dashrath Bandhate

Madhav S/O Manikrao Dhande (in Jail) Vs the State of Mah. Thr. Pso, Risod (Dy.Sp State C.I.D., Amravati Unit)

Hariprasad Mangatra Agrawal Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Police Station Officer