REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

DADAN SINGH Appellant

V/S

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PATTIPATI VENKATIAH V. STATE OF A.P. [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR ALIAS KUMAR ALIAS SUGNU V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
RAJ BAHADUR V. STATE OF U.P. [OVERRULLED 1990 (2) EFR 646 14]
MOHD.NABI V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT V. ABDUL RASHID IBRAHIM MANSURI [REFERRED TO]
JAYAPALAN V. STATE [REFERRED TO]
DASHRATH LAL V. STATE OF U.P. [FOLLOWED ON]
BHANU PRATAP V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
SHAM RAM CHANDRAN SONAWANE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ MAL KANHAIYA MAL SONI V. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL V. STATE OF MP. [REFERRED TO]
ONKAR V. STATE OF M.P. [REFERRED TO]
AHMAD NASIR V. STATE OF AP. [REFERRED TO]
BEDIL V. STATE OF MP. [REFERRED TO]
SEWA RAM'S CASE [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH DAWOOD LEMA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
BABI V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
ANAND GOSWAMY V. STATE OF U.P. [REFERRED TO]
RADHA KISHAN VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
POORAN MAL SHRI HANUMAN PERSHAD GANERWALA JAGAT RAM MAGO RAMJI DAS SHARMA VS. DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION INVESTIGA TION NEW DELHI:DIRECTOR OF INSPECTION NEW DELHI:SHRI R N LIMAYA:SHRI R N LIMAYA [REFERRED TO]
MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BATRA CHARLES GURMUKH SOBRAJ VS. DELHI ADMINISTRATION:DELHI ADMINISTRATION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NATWARLAL DAMODARDAS SONI [REFERRED TO]
PARTAP SINGH VS. DIRECTOR OF ENFORCEMENT FOREIGN EXCHANGE REGULATION ACT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. MOHANLAL JITAMALJI PORWAL [REFERRED TO]
SATISH KUMAR VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL HAMIDKHAN PATHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
SEWA RAM VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]
JAINULABDIN ALIAS NAHAMACHA VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [REFERRED TO]
REKHA PARAMESWARI ALIAS GNANAMBIGAL MUTHIAH VS. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL SATAR S O AHMED SATTAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
FAUJI RAM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these bail applications, similar questions of law have been raised and these are accordingly being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) The submission made on behalf of the learned counsel, for the applicants are that Ss. 42 and 50 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as N.D.P.S. Act) are, mandatory and their violation must lead to the presumption of prejudice to the accused. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that if these provisions are violated, the prosecution and. trial will itself be vitiated, and, as such, the accused will be entitled to bail. As a corollary to this proposition, it is submitted that, in considering the grant of bail for violation of these provisions, the alleged fact that large quantity of the narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances was recovered, will be quite irrelevant consideration.

(3.) On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that these provisions may not be considered to be mandatory and if there is reason to believe that accused is prima facie guilty of the offence or he is unable to show prima facie that he is not guilty of the offence with which he has been charged, mere violation of these provisions could not entitle him to be released on bail.

Click here to view full judgment.

DADAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address