Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 66 (3.78 seconds)
Documents citing Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. ... vs Sambhu Sonkar And Another on 2 February, 2001

Pramod Ganpat Wankhede And Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 February, 2002

12. Learned Counsel Mr. Deshpande placed reliance on a recent decision of the Apex Court rendered in 2001 Cri.LJ. 4240, State of Madhya Pradesh -Appellant v. Kajad Respondent, wherein the Apex Court referring to the earlier decision in Intelligence Officer Narcotic Control Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar (supra) has held that the accused cannot be released on bail in offences punishable for a term of imprisonment of 5 years or more in view of the restriction embodied under Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act. The accused not to be released unless there, are reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence. In that case it was found that the earlier application for bail was rejected. The Apex Court in that context observed that bait cannot be granted particularly in view of the rejection of the earlier bail application. Since the second application was without mentioning the change in circumstance and as such it was deemed to be reviewed, which is not permissible. The Apex Court cancelled bail granted by the High Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - P S Brahme - Full Document

Kayum vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 January, 2021

11. The contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioners that the admission made by the Seizure Officer in cross-examination would indicate that each accused was having a share of 175 gms. of smack/ heroin and 250 gms. of opium from the total recovered contraband, suffice it to say that all the four accused, who are residents of Madhya Pradesh, were travelling in the same car. The contraband substances were recovered in bulk concealed under the hood of the car and not from individual possession of the accused. The admission which was elicited from the Seizure Officer (supra), was in answer to the suggestion given by the defence counsel that the accused, in their interrogation (Downloaded on 29/01/2021 at 08:23:02 PM) (8 of 9) [CRLMB-95/2021] notes, disclosed that they had equal shares in the recovered contraband. Suffice it to say, an interrogation note of the accused as recorded by the police officer is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and is not admissible in evidence for any purpose whatsoever. Section 35 of the NDPS Act lays the issue beyond discussion.
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S Mehta - Full Document

Ganesh Sharma Alias Gelal vs State Of Sikkim on 25 January, 2021

In Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau v. Sambhu Sonkar & Anr.2 the Supreme Court held that it would be difficult to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents therein that the liberal interpretation given by the High Court to Section 37 was justified as it affects personal liberty of a citizen who is yet to be tried is not acceptable. It was held by the Supreme Court that considering the legislative intent of curbing the practice of giving bail on technical ground in a crime which adversely affects the entire society including the lives of a number of persons and the object of making stringent provisions for control of illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, there is no reason to accept the construction of the section which its language can hardly bear.
Sikkim High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - B R Pradhan - Full Document

Sagar Pradhan vs State Of Sikkim on 15 May, 2021

This Court, following the judgments of the Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Kishan Lal & Ors.5; Intelligence Officer, Narcotics C. Bureau vs. Sambhu Sonkar & Anr.6; Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Dilip Pralhad Namade7 and Collector of Customs, New Delhi vs. Ahmadalieva Nodira8, held that the words "reasonable grounds" in Section 18 of SADA 2006 would have the same meaning as has been explained by the Supreme Court while interpreting Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. This Court held that it would connote substantial probable cause for believing that the accused is not guilty of the offences charged and that this reasonable belief contemplated in turn would point to the existence of such facts and circumstances as are sufficient to justify recording of satisfaction that the accused is not guilty of the offences charged. The judgment of the Supreme Court relied upon by the learned APP also holds that for granting bail, the court must, on the basis of the records produced 5 (1991) 1 SCC 705 6 (2001) 2 SCC 562 7 (2004) 3 SCC 619 8 (2004) SCC (Cri.)
Sikkim High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - B R Pradhan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next