The High Court dismissed a bail application in an NDPS commercial quantity case, holding that mere filing of the charge sheet was not enough to revisit the bail order. However, it directed the Sessions Court to conclude the trial within four months.
Petitioner's bail application dismissed; Sessions Court directed to dispose of case within four months.
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.
HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2560 of 2017
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed under Sections 437 and 439 of Cr.P.C., to enlarge the petitioner/ A-1 on bail in NDPS SC No.184 of 2016 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (Crime No.26 of 2016 of Maredumilli Police Station), registered for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) read with 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the NDPS Act’). He is in judicial custody since 12.06.2016.
1 AIR 2001 SC 3317
2
_______________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J_
Date: 03.04.2017 BSS
3
HON’ BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
41
CRIMINAL PETITION No.2560 of 2017
Date: 03.04.2017
BSS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in a commercial quantity NDPS case on renewal of the bail application where only the charge sheet was filed.
Whether the Sessions Court is directed to dispose of the pending bail case within a specific timeframe.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. KajadApplied¶5
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Kajad
3 provisions across 2 enactments
PETITIONER
UNNAMED RESPONDENT
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
