In this bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner sought release on the ground of parity with a co-accused. The High Court rejected the application, stating that the possession of a commercial quantity of ganja precludes bail due to Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Bail application stands rejected.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BLAPL No.11574 of 2022
Srikrushna Jani
…. Petitioner Mr. S.S. Ray-2, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa
…. Opp. Party Mr. S.R. Roul, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No.
19.12.2022
// 2 //
( G. Satapathy)
Judge
Priyajit
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner accused of possessing a commercial quantity of ganja in light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Whether the rule of parity applies where a co-accused has already been granted bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Kerala others Vrs. Rajesh and othersReferred¶19
State of Kerala others Vrs. Rajesh and others;(2020) 12 SCC 122 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Srikrushna Jani
State of Orissa
G. Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
