The High Court rejected a bail application filed by Balaram, who was charged under the NDPS Act for cultivating nearly 8,000 cannabis plants. Citing statutory bars under Section 37 NDPS Act and the seriousness of the offence, the judge refused discretion under Section 439 CrPC.
Prayer for bail rejected; bail application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BLAPL No. 1488 of 2015
08. 03.11.2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and l
earned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioner is implicated in the offence punishable under Section 20 (a)(i)
of the NDPS Act, on the allegation that he along with others was cultivating 7998 Cannabis pl
ants. The Grama Rakhi of the spot village has identified the present petitioner along with oth
er co-accused persons.
Taking into consideration the fact that there is bar under Section 37 of the N
DPS Act and the seriousness of the offence, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion under
Section 439 Cr. P.C in favour of the petitioner.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail is rejected and the bail application is dismi
ssed.
.
C.R. Dash, J.
Balaram
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to a petitioner implicated in cultivating cannabis plants under Section 20(a)(i) of the NDPS Act.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Balaram
State
C.R. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court