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
5 paragraphs · 208 wordsA. Mateen, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri I. B. Singh, Advocate, who was called to assist the Court since in the present case ten kilograms Ganja (cannavis) is said to have been recovered from the possession of the applicant. Gone through the FIR, bail rejection order as well as counter and rejoinder affidavits already exchanged between the parties.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that it is case of noncommercial quantity and, as such, Section 37 (1) (b) NDPS Act will not be a hindrance for considering release of the applicant on bail. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is neither a previous convict nor there is any criminal history against him, but he has been falsely roped in due to vengeance on the part of police party.
Taking into consideration overall aspects of the matter, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant Krishna Kant Pandey, accused of Crime No. 48 of 2009, under Section 18/20 NDPS Act, police station Mandhata, district Pratapgarh be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.