TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Petitioner-Accused Granted Bail: Factors Considered in NDPS Act Case</h1> <h3>Rameez Raaz Versus State of Karnataka</h3> The Court granted bail to the petitioner-accused No.1 under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. The decision was influenced ... Release on bail - seizure of Ganja - offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B)( ii)(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 - Held that:- When there is an allegation of trafficking ganja, report of opinion of an expert is the must - Apart from that, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the standing instruction s issued for the purpose of seeking seizure material for examination, which is to be done within 15 days, the same has not been followed in the present case - alleged offences are not exclusively punishable with death or imprisonment for life - Petitioner-accused No.1 is ordered to be released on bail for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c), 20(B)(ii)( b) of NDPS Act, 1985 - petition allowed. Issues: Bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for offences under NDPS Act, 1985 - Delay in sending seized material for examination - Allegation of false implication - Compliance with seizure material examination guidelines - Comparison with previous bail orders.In this judgment, the petitioner-accused No.1 filed a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking release for offences under Sections 8(c), 20(B)(ii)(b) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The prosecution's case involved a raid based on credible information alleging trafficking of ganja by three individuals. Despite the seizure of ganja, there was a significant delay of nearly two months in sending the seized material for examination to the FSL. The total quantity of ganja seized was deemed lesser than the commercial quantity. The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and had not committed the alleged offence. The petitioner expressed readiness to comply with any conditions set by the Court. Although a charge sheet was filed, the FSL report was still pending, leading to the Sessions Court not taking cognizance of the case. The petitioner argued that expert opinion on seized material is crucial in cases of drug trafficking. Additionally, the petitioner highlighted non-compliance with the standing instructions mandating examination of seized material within 15 days. The petitioner's case was compared with previous bail orders where accused Nos. 2 and 3 were granted bail under similar circumstances, indicating consistency in approach. The alleged offences were not punishable exclusively with death or life imprisonment, further supporting the bail application.The Court allowed the petition, ordering the release of the petitioner-accused No.1 on bail for the specified offences under the NDPS Act, 1985. The conditions for bail included the execution of a personal bond and furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the concerned Court. The petitioner was directed not to tamper with prosecution witnesses and to appear regularly before the concerned Court. The decision was based on the delay in sending seized material for examination, the petitioner's assertion of false implication, non-compliance with seizure material examination guidelines, and the similarity of the case with previously granted bail applications for other accused individuals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
