Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.28 seconds)Article 21 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 37 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 27A 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 09.10.2025 and the matter is
still under investigation. 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.
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
YAG DUTT
2026.04.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-7705-2026 -3-
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 bail
then the court concerned ordinarily lists that application 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
6.1. As per custody certificate dated 31.03.2026 filed by the
learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a
period of 05 months and 19 days. As per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in two more cases/FIRs. 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. Reliance in this regard can be placed
YAG DUTT
2026.04.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-7705-2026 -5-
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. 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
6.1. As per custody certificate dated 31.03.2026 filed by the
learned State counsel, the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a
period of 05 months and 19 days. As per the said custody certificate, the
petitioner is stated to be involved in two more cases/FIRs. 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. Reliance in this regard can be placed
YAG DUTT
2026.04.01 17:42
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-7705-2026 -5-
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. 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.