Md. Sahil v. The State of Jharkhand
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Outcome
Bail refused
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed
Provisions considered
- Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 s. 27(b)(ii)
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 21C, 29
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is, hereby, rejected. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed. Sangam/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi…
Judgment
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner For the State :- :- --- Mr. Ravi Prakash, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocate ---- 04/18.04.2024 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent State.
The petitioner is apprehending his arrest in connection with Gumla P.S. Case No. 411 of 2023, for the offence registered under Section 27(b)(ii) of Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 and Sections 21C/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, pending in the court of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Gumla.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. He submits that although the recovery of the cough syrups are there from the house of the petitioner, however he has nothing to do with the said syrups as it was kept by another co-accused namely Md. Shad @ Shane Ali and Md. Ruman Rain. He submits that the petitioner was apprehending the false implication of the case and in view of that he has also gone to the police officials.
Learned State counsel opposed the prayer on the ground that quantity is more than commercial in nature and in view of that the privilege of anticipatory bail may kindly be rejected.
Considering that the said syrups were recovered from the house of the petitioner and the father of the petitioner has admitted that he was associated with the anti-social elements, however he has stated that falsely the petitioner has been implicated in this --1-- case.
Operative part
In the attending facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, and hence, the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner, is, hereby, rejected. Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed. Sangam/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) --2--
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application is hereby dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 — s. 27(b)(ii); Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 21C, 29.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.