Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (3.15 seconds)Section 20 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Tofan Singh vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 29 October, 2020
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was not found at the
spot and has been involved in this case on the basis of the disclosure statement
made by the co-accused,
co accused, which is not admissible in evidence against the
petitioner. To fortify this argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has
relied upon the authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Tofan Singh
vs. State of Tamil Nadu : (2021) 4 SCC 11. It is further argued that no
subsequent recovery has been effected from the petitioner. The petitioner is
not involved in any other criminal case. There is nothing on record to connect
the petitioner with the subject crime. Even otherwise, ssimilarly situated
ed co-
Ajmal T. A. @ Kuru vs State By Kerala on 23 August, 2023
5. In reply, learned
rned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an
order dated 23.08.2023, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special
Leave to appeal (Crl.) No. 6599/2023, titled as Ajmal T. A. @ Kuru vs. State
of Kerala,, whereby in similar circumstances, the petition
petitioner-accused
accused had been
granted concession of regular bail by observing that there was remote
likelihood of the petitioner's involvement as the alleged involvement was
entirely based upon the co-accused's
co accused's statement and alleged call details record.
1