Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.45 seconds)Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 483 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rabi Prakash vs The State Of Odisha on 13 July, 2023
15. At this stage, apt would it be to refer to the decision of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha, 2023 SCC OnLine SC
1109,wherein it was observed as under:
Nadeem Ahmed vs State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) And Anr on 11 April, 2022
16. Likewise, in Naeem Ahmed Alias Naim Ahmad vs. Govt. of NCT of
Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 220, the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted bail
to the accused from whom commercial quantity of contraband was
recovered, having regard to his custody of 01 year and 11 months, the fact
that the accused had no criminal antecedents and that the conclusion of trial
would take time. The relevant paras of the decision reads as under:
Jitender @ Bantu vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi on 8 November, 2016
12. It may be noted that recovery was made in the case at about 1:25 pm
in the month of April during broad day light but no independent witnesses
was joined. The justification given in the charge-sheet as well as in the
status report is that efforts were made to join the independent witnesses but
no one was ready for the same but insofar as absence of videography and
photography is concerned, no justification for the same is forthcoming. A
coordinate bench of this Court in Bantu (supra) has observed that though,
sufficiency of explanation as regards lack of videography and photography
is to be tested during the course of trial, however, in the absence of any
independent witnesses in support of recovery, lack of videography and
photography is a relevant factor while considering applications for grant of
bail as the same cast a doubt over the very fulcrum of the case. The relevant
paragraphs from the said decision are as under: