Allowed

Mithulal Anantlal Shrivastav v. State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC4 Mar 2024BA/878/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail application under Section 439 CrPC in an NDPS case involving recovery of dried cannabis leaves. The court held the contraband was intermediate quantity, noted the absence of fruiting tops and that the chemical analyser report was not filed with the charge-sheet, and granted regular bail after charge-sheet filing.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on P.R. Bond of Rs.25,000 with one solvent surety; conditions imposed; liberty to State for cancellation if similar offence committed.

Mithulal Anantlal Shrivastav vs State of Maharashtra — Narcotics (NDPS) | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

18-ba-878-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.878 OF 2024

¶5

Mithulal Anantlal Shrivastav ... Applicant V/s. State of Maharashtra … Respondent

¶6

Mr. Kuldeep Patil I.by Ms. Saili Dhuru, for the applicant. Mr. Pankaj Deokar, APP, for the Respondent/State.

¶7

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK DEEPAK GAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2024.08.27 18:56:11 +0530

¶8

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J.

¶9

DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2024.

¶10

PC:

¶11

Heard.

¶12

By this application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the applicant is seeking bail in Crime No.839 of 2023, registered with Pelhar Police Station, Palghar for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) and ii(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶13

The contraband i.e. Ganja found in possession of the applicant was intermediate quantity. Section 2 (iii) (b) of the NDPS Act, defines that ‘Ganja, that is, the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops), by whatever name they may be known or designated’.

1 of 3

varsha

18-ba-878-2024.doc

However, in the present matter from the FIR it is evident that dried leaves were recovered from the applicant which is not accompanied by the fruiting tops. Furthermore, the CA report is not filed along with the charge-sheet.

¶18

Thus, considering the nature of recovery and the evidence, coupled with the quantity, I am of the opinion that since the chargesheet has been filed, further custody of the applicant is not necessary. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

(i) Criminal Bail Application is allowed and disposed off;

¶21

(ii) It is directed that the applicant shall be released on bail in Crime No.839 of 2023, registered with Pelhar Police Station, Palghar for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) and 20(b) and ii(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, on furnishing P.R.Bond of Rupees Twenty-five Thousand with one solvent surety in the like amount;

¶22

iii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case, as also not tamper with the evidence;

2 of 3

varsha

18-ba-878-2024.doc

iv) Liberty is granted to the State for cancellation of bail if the applicant commits similar offence;

¶27

v) The applicant shall attend the trial before the Trial Court regularly on every date unless exempted by the trial Court for any reason.

¶28

(ANIL S. KILOR, J)

¶29

3 of 3

¶30

varsha

Mithulal Anantlal Shrivastav v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithulal Anantlal Shrivastav v. State of Maharashtra

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant Pitamber More vs State of Maharashtra

Shri. Samrendra S/O Ravindranath Mishra Vs Ramdas S/O Ziblaji Belkhede

Sunil Ramesh Kachgunde Vs Manisha Sunil Kachgunde

Sahil Manoj Machare vs State of Maharashtra

Dattatray Arjun Shinde vs State of Maharashtra

Gulab Amarsingh Chavan@Pintu Chavan vs State of Maharashtra