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 · 222 wordsA. Mateen, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Additional Government. Gone through the FIR, bail rejection order as well as counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State.
As per allegation levelled by the prosecution sixty grams of Smack was recovered from the possession of the applicant and, as such, she was challaned under the provisions of 8/18/21 NDPS Act, Police Station Talkatora, district Lucknow.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the alleged recovery of Smack from the possession of applicant does not fall within the parameters of commercial quantity nor even within the minimum quantity, rather falls in between i. e. within medium quantity. Further submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that Section 37 (1) (b) NDPS Act will not apply in the present case and there is no criminal history against the applicant, which has been admitted in para17 of the counter affidavit.
Taking into consideration overall aspects of the matter and also the applicant being lady, I find it a fit case for bail.
Let applicant Smt. Sabnam, accused of Crime No. 115 of 2009, under Section 8/18/21 NDPS Act, police station Talkatora, district Lucknow be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned.