The High Court dismissed an application for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, implicated in a T.R. case under section 29 of the NDPS Act, holding it not a fit case.
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.
ABLAPL No.12921 of 2020
2. 16.11.2020
The matter is taken through video conferencing.
The petitioner having been implicated in T.R. Case No.62 of 2020 corresponding to Mathili P.S. Case No.93 of 2020 registered for alleged commission of offence under section 20(b)(ii)(C)/29 of the NDPS Act pending in the court of learned District and Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Malkangiri, has filed this application for grant of anticipatory bail.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Considering the submission and the nature of accusation as also the materials available concerning the role of this petitioner, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail.
Accordingly, the ABLAPL stands dismissed.
……………………..
D. Dash, J.
Basu
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail in the alleged offence under section 29 of the NDPS Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Basu
State
D. Dash
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
