BAIL APPL No. 2516 of 2009 · Kerala High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The Bail Application is disposed of as above
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ss. 167(2), 439
- Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 s. 20(ii)(B)
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 25
Judgment
K.T.SANKARAN, J. ----------------------------------------- B.A.No.2516 of 2009----------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th May, 2009
Operative part
O R D E R This is an application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.117/09 of Vellikulangara Police Station. 2. The offences alleged against the petitioner are under Sections 20(ii)(B) of the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 and Section 25 of the Arms Act.3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was foundin possession of 4.7 Kg of ganja and a country made revolver. The petitioner was arrested on 19.3.2009.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that chargeis not laid before 60 days of the date of arrest and therefore, Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure would apply.5. On production of a copy of this order, the SessionsCourt, Thrissur shall pass appropriate orders within a period of one week, if Section 167(2) Cr.P.C applies. The Bail Application is disposed of as above. K.T.SANKARAN, JUDGE vgs.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The Bail Application is disposed of as above
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 167(2), 439; Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 — s. 20(ii)(B); Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Kerala High Court, on 29 May 2009. The bench was K T SANKARAN.
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.