AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 192 wordsK.S. Kumaran, J.—Heard counsel.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have joined investigation which is confirmed by the learned counsel for the State.
The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the provisions of Section 42 of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with inasmuch as the secret information which was allegedly received, has not been reduced to writing and forwarded to the superiorof-ficer. He also contends that the alleged recovery was made from a house after sunset and the reasons for not getting a warrant have also not have been recorded in writing.
In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.
The petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners on the allegations found in the F.I.R. mentioned in this petition, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However, the petitioners shall abide by the provisions contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Petition allowed.