9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Bail granted to the appellant challenged by the Union of India before the Bombay High Court, stay on bail order, interpretation of NDPS Act and Rules.
Bail Order Challenge: The appellant was found in possession of Methamphetamine and granted bail by the Special Judge, NDPS Act, Mumbai, relying on various legal precedents including a bail order in a similar case. The Union of India challenged this bail order before the Bombay High Court, which stayed the bail citing a reference to a larger Bench regarding a similar case. Contention of Appellant: The appellant's counsel argued that the reference to a larger Bench regarding a similar case did not justify the indefinite denial of bail to the appellant. It was highlighted that the High Court's stay on the bail order left the appellant incarcerated without a clear timeline for resolution. Reference was made to a previous case where a bail order similar to the one in question was approved by the Supreme Court. Union of India's Argument: The Union of India, represented by the ASG, relied on rule 66 of the NDPS Rules to support the High Court's decision to deny bail to the appellant. Judgment: The Supreme Court disagreed with the Union of India's argument and found the High Court's decision to stay the bail order as improper, unfair, and incorrect. The stay on the bail order was lifted, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.
|
