Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.21 seconds)Section 27A in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 37 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Inderjeet Singh @ Laddi vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2012
6. The petitioner was arrested on 9.10.2025 wherein after
investigation was carried out and challan stands presented on 7.4.2026.
Total 12 prosecution witnesses have been cited but none has been
examined till date as the charges are yet to be framed. It is not in dispute
that the chemical examiner report has not yet been received. A perusal of
the dicta of the Division Bench judgment passed in Inderjeet Singh Laddi
(supra), when read in the context of the factual matrix of the present case,
indubitably reflects that the petitioner ought to be granted concession of
regular bail till the receipt of the chemical examiner report before the
concerned Court. Further, Section 27A has been invoked on the ground of
recovery of ₹ 5,000/- which is stated to be drug money. However, at this
juncture there is nothing forthcoming to suggest that alleged recovery of ₹
5,000/- affected from the petitioner is drug money.
6.1. As per custody certificate dated 22.4.2026 filed by the learned
State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period
of 5 months and 10 days. As per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in 01 more case/FIR. Indubitably, the
antecedents of a person are required to be accounted for while considering
a regular bail petition preferred by him. However, this factum cannot be a
ground sufficient by itself, to decline the concession of regular bail to the
petitioner in the FIR in question when a case is made out for grant of
regular bail qua the FIR in question by ratiocinating upon the
facts/circumstances of the said FIR.
Sukhwant Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab on 18 May, 2009
In
Sukhwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 539, it has been held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as follows:
Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P.& Ors on 23 March, 2009
....... following the decision of this Court in Kamlendra Pratap
Singh v. State of U.P. (2009) 4 SCC 437 we reiterate that a
court hearing a regular bail application has got inherent
power to grant interim bail pending final disposal of the bail
application. In our opinion, this is the proper view in view of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India which protects the life
and liberty of every person. When a person applies for regular
ASHWANI KUMAR bail then the court concerned ordinarily lists that application
2026.04.24 11:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.20772 of 2026 -3-
after a few days so that it can look into the case diary which
has to be obtained from the police authorities and in the
meantime the applicant has to go to jail. Even if the applicant
is released on bail thereafter society.
Deepak Bajaj vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 12 November, 2008
The reputation of a
person is his valuable asset, and is a facet of his right under
Article 21 of the Constitution vide Deepak Bajaj v. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 16 SCC 14. Hence, we are of the opinion
that in the power to grant bail there is inherent power in the
court concerned to grant interim bail to a person pending final
disposal of the bail application. Of course, it is in the
discretion of the court concerned to grant interim bail or not
but the power is certainly there.
Maulana Mohd.Amir Rashadi vs State Of U.P.& Anr on 16 January, 2012
Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd.
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.24 11:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.20772 of 2026 -5-
Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal)
586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in
case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments
of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State
of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana,
1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.
Shakuntala Pradhan @ Patra vs State Of Orissa And Another on 27 May, 2015
Reliance in this regard can be placed
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd.
ASHWANI KUMAR
2026.04.24 11:06
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M No.20772 of 2026 -5-
Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (1) RCR (Criminal)
586; a Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in
case of Sridhar Das v. State, 1998 (2) RCR (Criminal) 477 & judgments
of this Court in CRM-M No.38822-2022 titled as Akhilesh Singh v. State
of Haryana, decided on 29.11.2021, and Balraj v. State of Haryana,
1998 (3) RCR (Criminal) 191.