Just a moment...
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 petitioner was entitled to interim bail in view of the prevailing pandemic, her custody period, medical condition, and assurance of attendance before the trial court.
Analysis: The petitioner had been in custody for more than two years, was a permanent resident of Goa with family support, and had filed an affidavit undertaking to attend trial dates and video conferencing proceedings. The jail report noted only mild skin allergy with treatment showing improvement and stable vitals, while the broader pandemic situation in the jail was treated as a serious factor. The Court also noted the absence of two independent witnesses at the alleged seizure, the satisfactory jail conduct, and the lack of any other pending cases against the petitioner. The validity of the statement under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was not examined at this stage.
Conclusion: Interim bail was granted to the petitioner for 45 days on stated conditions, including residence at her permanent address, periodic reporting, cooperation through the investigating officer, and attendance in trial as directed.
Final Conclusion: The petition was allowed and the petitioner was released on interim bail subject to conditions designed to secure her presence and prevent interference with the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: Interim bail may be granted where custody conditions, health concerns, roots in society, and reliable undertakings to appear in trial together justify temporary release subject to safeguards.