Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAMSUDDIN versus BOARD OF REVENUE U.P. AND OTHERS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shamsuddin v. Board Of Revenue U.P. And Others. - CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. 5468 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2996 (16 September 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 5468 of  2005

Shamshuddin Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Ravindra Singh,J.

Heard Sri Brijendra Kumar Jai Prakash Prasad learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A.

This application has been filed by the applicant Shamshuddin with the prayer  that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 442 of 2004  under Section18/20 of N.D.P.S.Act, P.S. Delhi Gate, district Aligarh.

From the perusal of the record it appears that in the present case an F.I.R. was lodged by the Sub Inspector Sita Ram Dheemar on 28.11.2004. The allegation against the applicant is that from his possession 2 k.g. 800 gram charas was recovered .

It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no compliance of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and there is no public witnesses to support the prosecution story. According to prosecution version itself recovered articles were in two packets and from both the packets sample was not  taken.

It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting  that the arresting officer has apprised the applicant about his right as provided under Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act and he placed the offer before him to give search before any Magistrate or Gazetted Officer, but the applicant stated that search may be taken by the arresting officer. It is submitted that the arresting officer has made an effort to collect the public witness, but nobody was available. It is further submitted that huge recovery of charas was made from the possession of the applicant, so there was no chance of plantation of the same.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant and without expressing any opinion on the merits  of the case, the applicant is not entitled for bail at this stage.  

Accordingly this bail application is rejected

Dt. 16.9.2005

N.A.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.