Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the sentence of a convict under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 could be suspended in the facts of the case, and whether the accused could be permitted to furnish a fixed deposit or other monetary security instead of sureties while securing release.
Analysis: The quantity involved was less than commercial quantity, so the rigours of Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 did not apply. The accused had already undergone substantial custody, had faced trial without absconding, and the record did not justify continued incarceration at the suspension stage. On the question of security, the legal framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 permits deposit of money or Government promissory notes in lieu of bond in appropriate cases, and the choice to adopt such mode lies with the accused. The reasoning further recognised that the purpose of bail is securing of the accused, not collecting money for the State, and that cash or fixed-deposit security may be an effective alternative to sureties where the court finds it appropriate.
Conclusion: Suspension of sentence was granted, and the accused was allowed to secure release by furnishing the required bond, with the alternative of offering a fixed deposit in lieu of surety, subject to the conditions imposed.