Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.30 seconds)The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Section 37 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Phool Chand vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 18 April, 1980
7. So far as the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner are concerned, in a recent decision of this Court rendered in Sri Ram's case (supra) after relying on the earlier decision of this Court in Phool Chand v. State (supra), Heera Ram v. State (supra) bail has been granted as challan was not filed within a period of 90 days.
Section 167 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Shardulbhai Lakhmanbhai Pancholi And ... vs State Of Gujarat on 15 September, 1989
5. In the present case the petitioner was arrested on 18-11-92 and he was produced before the Magistrate on 19-11-92. Incomplete challan without F.S.L. report was filed on 9-2-93 and ultimately challan papers were given on 23-2-93 as the P.O. was on leave. Admittedly, the petitioner did not move for bail after expiry of period of 90 days and prior to filing of challan and, therefore, the accused-petitioner cannot take advantage of default on the part of investigating agency. I am supported by the view expressed in the cases relating to offences other than N.D.P.S. Act viz. Lakshmi Brahman's case 1983 Cri LJ 839: (AIR 1983 SC 439) which has been followed by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Shardulbhai v. State of Gujarat, 1990 Cri LJ 1275 and Hariom v. State of U.P., 1992 Cri LJ 182 decided on 18-2-91, so also in Kawarlal v. State of M.P., 1993 (1) Crimes 808 decided on 22-10-92. In view of this and as discussed above, the petitioner cannot claim bail solely on the ground that the challan was filed after 90 days particularly when this case relates to the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act.
Kawarlal Limbaji Gari And Ors. vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 October, 1992
5. In the present case the petitioner was arrested on 18-11-92 and he was produced before the Magistrate on 19-11-92. Incomplete challan without F.S.L. report was filed on 9-2-93 and ultimately challan papers were given on 23-2-93 as the P.O. was on leave. Admittedly, the petitioner did not move for bail after expiry of period of 90 days and prior to filing of challan and, therefore, the accused-petitioner cannot take advantage of default on the part of investigating agency. I am supported by the view expressed in the cases relating to offences other than N.D.P.S. Act viz. Lakshmi Brahman's case 1983 Cri LJ 839: (AIR 1983 SC 439) which has been followed by the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Shardulbhai v. State of Gujarat, 1990 Cri LJ 1275 and Hariom v. State of U.P., 1992 Cri LJ 182 decided on 18-2-91, so also in Kawarlal v. State of M.P., 1993 (1) Crimes 808 decided on 22-10-92. In view of this and as discussed above, the petitioner cannot claim bail solely on the ground that the challan was filed after 90 days particularly when this case relates to the offence under the N.D.P.S. Act.
Ram Dayal vs Central Narcotic Bureau on 3 September, 1992
Reference may also be made to Ram Dayal v. Central Narcotic Bureau, Gwalior 1993 (1) EFR 139: (1993 Cri LJ 1443), wherein Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court has held as under at page 1452 (of Cri LJ):