Find a Lawyer

FEROZ SHAH versus THE STATE

Sections 497 and 103 of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act (XXV of 1997), Sections 9 and 25, were recovered from a motor vehicle containing a large quantity of marijuana, in which the confession statement of the co-accused along with the accused driver / co-accused was recovered from the accused. The commission of the conviction cannot be taken into account even at the bail-out stage. According to the record, the material available had to be removed to prove whether any of the allegations leveled against him could be done with the crime, no detailed inquiry would be made. Section 103, without any restrictions on non-compliance with the CRPC's mandatory provisions, was obtained under the Control Section 25 of the Drug Substances Act, 1997, which precluded the application of section 103. Yes, the CR suspect failed to show any background. There will be a bitter or unjustified desire between him and the police officers to falsely implicate the police in a matter of this nature so that they can claim bail through a claim about the substance recovered from the underground vehicle. Because I disagree with any report of the Chemical Examiner, it is not considered good for his bail approval, even though the accused has been in custody since his arrest, but such period will be the case. At the trial, the accused should not be eligible for release on bail famous lower court advocate from Dhatmal lawyer