Judgements

Our lawyers specialize across industries and legal practice areas

In the matter of “Badakulu Ladu vs State” it is cleared that to prove the Guilt of the Applicant the prosecution need to prove the allegations beyond the reasonable doubt and sould not harp only upon the CDR and Transactions

The Hon’ble High Court in the matter of “Aslam Noorudheen vs NCB” had held that the significant consideration is that, the prosecution has not adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the petitioner had conscious possession of the contraband or was aware of the contents of the parcel and therefore, these crucial aspects remain unsubstantiated against the petitioner.

Police officials in the matter of “Ankit Sagar vs NCB” had transfered the drug from the 2 cartons in into single carton and had not weight the each box drug, which is absoletely against the procedure prescribed by law

The Hon’ble High court in the matter of “Arshad vs State” had held that Applicant’s arrest is not supported by any independent recovery and is premised solely on the disclosure statements there is no direct material linking the applicant to the contraband recovered from the intercepted parcel

The procedure adopted by the prosecution in the matter “Aas Mohammed vs State” is deemed improper reason being the sample which were deposited in the FSL were not drawn from each recovered contraband packets hence this court observed that this irregularity would likely prejudice the applicant.

The Hon’ble High court in the matter of “AKASH BISHT vs State” had held that the recovered susbstance falls under the category of non-commercial therefore section 37 will not come beween in granting the bail

The Hon’ble Court in the matter “Aabid Khan vs State” has meticulously dealt with the interpretation of word nearest prescribed under the NDPS act and make it clear that the compliance of the same can’t be ignored by the compliance officer.

The Hon’ble court in the matter of “Ram hari rai vs State” had granted the Regular bail to the Applicant by observing that the Applicant was arrested only on the basis of the disclosure statement and mainly the grounds for arrest which is the right of the Applicant were not served to the Applicant