Mahdan v. State Rep by
Case brief
What is this about?
A bail petition was dismissed as the petitioner was accused of possessing 110 kgs of ganja, a commercial quantity under the NDPS Act, leading the court to decline anticipatory bail.
What did the court decide?
Anticipatory bail was denied and the criminal original petition was dismissed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Criminal Jurisdiction )
Wednesday, the Seventh day of April Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr Justice M.DHANDAPANI
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION No.19392 of 2020
MADHAN [ PETITIONER / ACCUSED ]
Vs STATE REP BY, [ RESPONDENT ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NIBCID POLICE STATION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT. (CRIME NO.31 OF 2019)
For Petitioner : M/S.L.BASKARAN Advocate
For Respondent : M/S.M.PRABHAVATHI, Additional Public Prosecutor
PETITION FOR BAIL 439 Cr.P.C. ORDER : The Court Made the following order :-
The petitioner, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 20.07.2019 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), 25 and 29(1) of NDPS Act, in Crime No.31 of 2019, on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted to a petitioner accused of possessing commercial quantity of ganja under the NDPS Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
MADHAN
- respondent
STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NIBCID POLICE STATION, KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT
Coram
M.DHANDAPANI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court