This bail application dismissed as the Hon'ble Judge found the charge serious under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act, barred by Section 37, and the seized Ganja quantity was commercial, thus refusing bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
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. 4597 of 2015
03. 20.11.2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioners are implicated in the offence punishable under Section
20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S Act.
Considered the materials placed by learned counsel for the parties.
Taking into consideration, the seriousness of the charge, bar under Section 37
of the N.D.P.S. Act and the quantity of Ganja seized from them which is more than the commerc
ial quantity, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C in favour o
f the petitioners.
In view of the above, the prayer for bail is rejected and the bail app
lication is dismissed.
C.R. Dash, J.
Balaram
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to petitioners implicated in an offence under Section 20 (b) (ii) (C) of the N.D.P.S. Act.
Whether the seriousness of the charge and the quantity of Ganja seized preclude the exercise of discretion under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Balaram
The State
C.R. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court