Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)
Sukhdev vs State Of Haryana on 5 July, 2017 cites

Raghubirsaran Jain And Anr. vs The State And Anr. on 28 June, 1995

"Following the judgment of Apex Court in Satya Narain Musadi's case (supra) which has been followed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Matchumari China's case (supra), and by Calcutta High Court in Raghubirsaran Jain and another Vs. State and another, 1995 Crl.LJ 4117, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners herein 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 09-07-2017 06:49:00 ::: Crl. Misc. No.M-21390 of 2017 -2- should have been released, in peculiar circumstances of this case, as indefeasible right had accrued to them under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. On presentation of incomplete challan without the report of chemical examiner and the prosecution agency having not availed the benefit of Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act within a period of 180 days. In a case under the NDPS Act, a right of bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. of an accused can be defeated by the prosecution agency by availing the remedy under Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act subject to the fulfillment of the statutory requirement of Section 36 A (4) of the NDPS Act which is to be considered in each case on individual merits by the concerned trial Court/ Special Judge. The right under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. cannot be defeated by merely filing an incomplete challan. It is pertinent to observe here that all observations made in this judgment are in context to the offences under the NDPS Act.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1