{"text": "Penal Code, 1860 \u2013 ss.363, 366, 376-D, 506 \u2013 Appellant alongwith other accused persons convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 366, 376-D, 506 and s.4, POCSO Act \u2013 Held: Evidence of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence establish the charge of rape \u2013 However, charge of gang evidence \u2013 Thus, conviction by the trial court, confirmed by High Court u/s.376-D is modified \u2013 Appellant is convicted u/s.376 and sentenced for the period undergone \u2013 Fine and default sentence imposed by the trial court, unaltered \u2013 Conviction u/s.506 is set aside", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 ss. 42 & 43 \u2013 Governing provisions, if s.42 or s.43 \u2013 Non-compliance of s.42 \u2013 Secret information received by PW-4 (S.I.) that accused- appellants were selling poppy straw in a vehicle \u2013 with fellow officials \u2013 Accused-appellants found sitting in a Jeep \u2013 Notice served u/s.50 \u2013 Search led to recovery of poppy straw \u2013 Trial court convicted appellants u/s.15 rejecting their plea of acquittal on ground of non-compliance of s.42 \u2013 The trial court held", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 \u2013 Appeal against grant of bail \u2013 Accused-respondent was accused of a heinous and shocking murder of a lady doctor aged about 30 years \u2013 Incident alleged to have taken place in the presence of victim\u2019s father \u2013 His bail Bail application moved before High Court was, however, allowed within 10/12 days of dismissal of bail application by Sessions Court \u2013 State filed appeal against the grant of bail \u2013 Held: In the impugned order, High Court did not advert to any error in the reasoning of Sessions", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Sentence/Sentencing: Conviction of appellant-accused under s.21 of NDPS Act \u2013 He was found to be in possession of 1 kg heroin which is four times more than the minimum of commercial quantity \u2013 As per NDPS Act, 250 gm and above of Narcotic substance/drug is a commercial quantity \u2013 under s.21 of the NDPS Act is 10 years R.I. \u2013 So far as the commercial quantity is concerned, it may be upto 20 years R.I. \u2013 Appellant was sentenced to 15 years R.I. with fine of Rs.2 lakhs \u2013 Plea of appellant that while imposing punishment of 15 years R.I. which is higher than", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 1.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 389(1) r/w. s. 37 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 Suspension of sentence \u2013 Of the person convicted u/ss. 23(c) and 25A of NDPS Act \u2013 Granted by High Court during pendency of Appeal to Supreme Court \u2013 Held: Where trial has ended in conviction, High court should exercise its power to suspend the sentence for sufficient reasons, which must have bearing on the public policy underlying s. 37 NDPS Act \u2013 No case of suspension of sentence u/s. 389(1) is made out", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "UNION OF INDIA THROUGH NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU, LUCKNOW", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 ss.8, 21, 27A and 29 \u2013 On receiving information, a vehicle was intercepted by the NCB officers in which respondent and other two accused persons were travelling \u2013 Nothing objectionable was found in the search \u2013 However, search of car revealed two packets together weighing 3.300 kg hidden under the place where wiper is connected to the front bonnet of the car \u2013 The application for bail of the respondent was rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge \u2013 The High", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act \u2013 ss.8, 21, 43, 50 \u2013 Appellant convicted u/ss.8, 21 \u2013 Affirmed by High Court \u2013 On appeal, held: As recovery of the contraband from appellant\u2019s motorcycle was a chance recovery on a public road, apply \u2013 Seizure of the motor cycle from appellant is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the question of ownership of vehicle is not relevant \u2013 Compliance of s.50 not attracted in the present case \u2013 Concurrent findings by courts holding the appellant guilty and", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: ss. 8(c), 22(c), 25, 28, 29, 67 \u2013 Seizure of psychotropic substances \u2013 Prosecution case that large number of tablets seized by Directorate of Revenue Intelligence from different locations believing \u2013 A-1 to A-3 arrested under various provisions of NDPS Act for alleged export of psychotropic substances \u2013 Arrest of A-4 on the basis of statements of A-1 and A- 3 for contravening provisions of NDPS Act \u2013 Grant of bail to A-4 by NDPS Court \u2013 However, the High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u2013 s.427 \u2013 Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 ss. 23, 29 and s.21 \u2013 Appellant-accused was held guilty by the PS Customs, Amritsar u/s.23 and s.21 of the NDPS Act for recovery of 4 kg of heroin and sentenced rigorous imprisonment (RI) \u2013 Thereafter, he was again held guilty for the offence u/s.29 r/w. s.21(c) of the NDPS Act after recovery of 750 grams of heroin from Delhi and was sentenced for 10 years RI by the Trial Court at Delhi, however, in view of the provisions of s.31 (ii) of the NDPS", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.439 \u2013 Bail application rejected by Session Judge applying the provisions of s.37 of the NDPS Act 1985and stating that as a total seizure \u2018from all accused\u2019 was 12 gms cocaine, 55 gm Ganja, 11.5 gms ecstasy MDMA, no bail could be given to the appellant in present case \u2013 High Court also rejected bail \u2013 On appeal, held: The residence of the appellant was searched pursuant to statement made by one \u2018BKR\u2019 \u2013 Pursuant to search made of the appellant\u2019s premises, no drugs", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Penal Code, 1860: s.376(2)(f) or s.354 \u2013 Prosecution case was that about fortnight prior to the date of registration of FIR, the two victim-prosecutrix (PW-1 and PW-2) aged about 9 years and 8 years respectively were playing in the street near the respondent\u2019s house \u2013 Respondent them to his house and took off his clothes and undressed PW- 1 and started rubbing his genital against her genital and repeated same act with PW-2 \u2013 Both the girls got scared and started crying and he threatened them with physcial harm \u2013 After few days, victims revealed the incident", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Sentence / Sentencing \u2013 Suspension of execution of sentence \u2013 Trial Court had convicted and sentenced appellant u/ss.363 and 354 IPC and s.8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 \u2013 Prayer of appellant for declined by High Court \u2013Appellant pleaded before Supreme Court that the High Court had taken too strict and stern view of the matter and failed to appreciate that the maximum sentence of imprisonment awarded in the matter was of three years \u2013 Held: The High Court, while referring", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Penal Code, 1860 \u2013 s.376 \u2013 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) \u2013 ss. 5 and 6 \u2013 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u2013 ss. 397, 482 \u2013 Discharge of Accused \u2013 \u2018X\u2019, delivered a baby and thereafter committed suicide by registered for the offence punishable u/s 376 of IPC and the provision of the POCSO Act against the respondent \u2013 The special Judge framed charges for the abovementioned offences against the respondent \u2013 The accused questioned the legality and validity of the order of framing charge by", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Penal Code, 1860 \u2013 ss. 376A, 376 (2)(i), 302 \u2013 POCSO Act \u2013 s. 6 \u2013 Rape and murder of a minor girl \u2013 Prosecution case that appellant-accused had raped and throttled to cause death of victim, who was daughter of appellant\u2019s cousin sister \u2013 While in custody statement and thereafter, at his instance, the victim\u2019s corpse concealed underneath gunny bags, was recovered \u2013 The post-mortem and the forensic science laboratory (FSL) reports revealed commission of rape in a diabolically and gruesome manner and causing of death by throttling", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Anticipatory bail: Case filed against respondent no.1 under ss.354(1)(i), (ii) and (iv), 354A(2) and 354A(3) IPC /w ss.7, 8, 9 and 11 of POCSO Act \u2013 Allegation against respondent no.1 was that he sexually assaulted his 12 years old niece \u2013 He asked the victim to sit on his lap her and kissed her on the cheeks and tried to kiss her on her lips \u2013 He further attempted to disrobe her and made lewd comments \u2013 The incident traumatized the victim to an extent that she slumped down in her course and performance although she was an excellent student giving good", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Review \u2013 Clarification sought on quantum of sentence \u2013 In judgment dated 19.04.2022 for which review is sought, the petitioner-accused was held guilty and punished for the offences was under ss.376(2)(i), 376(2)(m) and as also under s.5 (i) and s.5 (m) read with s.6 of the POCSO Act \u2013 In judgment dated 19.04.2022, the Court, while commuting the sentence of death for the sentence of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under s.302 of IPC, and while imposing sentence to undergo imprisonment for 20", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Bail \u2013 Cancellation of \u2013 Allegations of drug trafficking \u2013 Held: A confessional statement recorded u/s.67 of the NDPS Act will remain inadmissible in trial of an offence under the NDPS Act petitioner-NCB, on basis of confession/ voluntary statements of respondents-accused or the co-accused u/s.67, cannot form the basis for overturning the impugned orders releasing them on bail \u2013 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 s.67. Bail \u2013 Cancellation of", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 ss.20(b)(ii)(C), 54 Presumption u/s.54 \u2013 Appellant concurrently convicted u/s.20(b)(ii)(C) and sentenced, relying on the testimony of PW-7-DSP (who acted both as the informant and the IO) examined as PW-7 claims to have done everything only in the presence of independent witnesses \u2013 But those independent witnesses not merely denied their presence and participation but also came up with an explanation as to how their signatures found a place in the documents \u2013 Thus,", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u2013 s.391 \u2013 Additional evidence in criminal appeal \u2013 When impermissible \u2013 Respondent no.1-accused was convicted u/s 302, IPC and sentenced to life \u2013 Conviction and sentence challenged by respondent before High for recording of evidence in respect of his plea of unsoundness of mind \u2013 Application allowed, Trial Court was directed to take on record the additional evidence and documents and to send the file back along with additional evidence \u2013 On appeal by complainant, held: Evidence", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 1.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 ss. 8, 22, 29, 37 and 67 \u2013 Post-arrest bail \u2013 Not granted \u2013 Respondent made statement u/s. 67 NDPS Act and disclosed that he was illegally selling and purchasing the illegal drugs from \u2018PJ\u2019 \u2013 was conducted by NCB at the premise of co-accused-\u2018PJ\u2019 and drugs covered under NDPS were recovered in huge quantities \u2013 Respondent was taken into custody \u2013 Respondent made application for bail before Special Judge, NDPS which was rejected \u2013 High Court granted", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Bail: Regular bail \u2013 Denial of \u2013 Matter pertaining to seizure of huge quantity of Narcotics drug, Heroin near Port in Gujarat in a joint operation by the Indian Coast Guard and \u2013 Prosecution case that on receiving intelligence input, the DRI intercepted a Pakistani boat in the Indian territorial waters which was trying to escape \u2013 Seizure of bags containing narcotic substance, and the Captain of the boat admitted dumping some bags into the sea along", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 1.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Repatriation of Prisoners Act, 2003 \u2013 ss.12, 13(6) \u2013 Adaptation of sentence, when permissible \u2013 Dangerous Drugs Act \u2013 ss.30(1)(f)(II), 47(2), 5(2) \u2013 Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1994 \u2013 s.21(b) \u2013 International Convention/Treaties \u2013 Mauritius \u2013 Article 8 \u2013 Continued enforcement of sentence \u2013 Respondent convicted by Supreme Court of Mauritius under Dangerous Drugs Act, sentenced to imprisonment for 26 years \u2013 Transferred to India under the 2003 Act \u2013 His representation u/ s.13(6), 2003 Act to", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: s.23 \u2013 Applicability of s.155(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code to the investigation of an offence u/s.23 of POCSO Act \u2013 Per Indira Baneerjee, J. \u2013 Procedure under Cr.P.C is not required to u/s.23 of POCSO Act which has been committed, by disclosure of the identity of victim, necessitates expeditious investigation for compliance of sub-sections (5) and (6) of s.19 of POCSO \u2013 Per J.K Maheshwari, J. \u2013 Procedure of s.155(2) Cr.P.C is required to be followed in an", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,1985 \u2013 s.50 \u2013 Effect of \u2013 Search conducted by Sub-Inspector and not by a Gazetted Officer or Magistrate, recovery of ganja from a polythene bag on a Kanwad carried by appellant \u2013 Appellant \u2013 Relying on State of Rajasthan v. Parmanand & Anr. [2014] 3 SCR 522 and seeking to expand the scope of the observations made, the appellant contended that the option given to him to get himself searched from the Officer concerned not being part of the statute, the same could not have", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 ss.27A, 37, and 21(b)/29 \u2013 Rigours of provisions of s.37 relating to grant of bail \u2013 Inapplicability \u2013 Cocaine, a contraband drug, recovered from a motorcar with three occupants \u2013 Respondent accused \u2013 Accusation against respondent pertaining to offence u/s. 27A that he along with other co-accused hatched criminal conspiracy to implicate two occupants of the motorcar under the NDPS Act out of personal grudge \u2013 Prosecution alleged that respondent got the contraband", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 s.2(xvii)(a) and (b) and s.15 \u2013 Conviction in relation to \u2018poppy straw\u2019 \u2013 \u2018Poppy straw\u2019 defined to mean all parts of \u2018opium poppy\u2019 except the seeds \u2013 \u2018Opium poppy\u2019 defined As per sub-clause (a) of Clause (xvii) of s.2 of the 1985 Act, \u2018opium poppy\u2019 means the plant of the species \u2018papaver somniferum L\u2019 \u2013 As per sub-clause (b) thereof, \u2018opium poppy\u2019 would also mean the plant of any other species of \u2018papaver\u2019", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988: s. 3(1) \u2013 Power to make orders detaining certain persons \u2013 FIRs against the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss. 22(b)/22(C)/29 and 21(B) of illegal trafficking of the narcotic drugs and that he is a habitual offender \u2013 Detention order by the Government \u2013 Writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the detention order \u2013 Dismissed by the High Court \u2013 On appeal, held: There was delay in passing the", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 \u2013 Quashing of F.I.R. and charge sheet \u2013 Non Reporting of Sexual Assault \u2013 FIR registered against unidentified person(s) on the accusation of commission of sexual offences against minor tribal girls who were residing \u2013 Respondent is the medical practitioner who was appointed for treatment of the girls in the said girl\u2019s hostel \u2013 He was arraigned as the sixth accused thereunder, essentially for the failure to report the commission of the offence under the POCSO Act, punishable u/s.21 (1) the", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Penal Code, 1860 \u2013 Ss. 302, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363, 366, 376A \u2013 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) \u2013 ss. 5 (i), 5 (m), 6 \u2013 Evidence Act, 1872 \u2013 s. 106 \u2013 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u2013 ss. 304, sexual assault on the young child-victim \u2013 Appellant-accused along with one another accused person was convicted for death sentence and life imprisonment, respectively, by the trial court for the offences u/ ss. 302, 376(2)(i), 376(2)(m), 363, 366 IPC r/w. s. 5(i) r/w. s. 6 and s.5(m) r/w.", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the Single Judge of the High Court was justifi ed in granting bail to the respondent-accused in connection with the FIR registered against them by the appellant-uncle of the minor girl alleging gang rape, threat of making video of rape recorded viral and u/ss. 376D, 384, 506 IPC, s. 3 to 6 of POCSO Act, s. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and s. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u2013 s. 439 \u2013 Special powers of High Court or Court of", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Bail \u2013 Denial of \u2013 When not proper \u2013 Appellant charged for commission of offences u/s. 20(b)(ii)(C), NDPS Act had been in custody for two years and 11 months \u2013 Bail denied \u2013 On appeal, held: The fact that the co-accused who was released on bail did not surrender Impugned order set aside \u2013 Matter to be reconsidered by the High Court \u2013 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 s.20(b)(ii)(C). CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.1578 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.01.2023 of the High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 1.0}}
{"text": "HEADNOTES Issues for consideration: (i) When an arrestee is forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002, whether writ of Habeus Corpus would lie; (ii) Whether s.41 CrPC has got any made under PMLA, 2002; (iii) The actual import of Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 as to whether the 15 days period of custody in favour of the police should be only within the fi rst 15 days of remand or spanning over the entire period of investigation - 60 or 90 days, as the case may be, as a", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 1.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: ss. 6, 5 clause (m) \u2013 Aggravated penetrative sexual assault \u2013 Punishment for \u2013 Prosecution case that accused had put his penis into mouth of the victim aged about 10 years and discharged semen \u2013 Conviction u/s. 377 and the POCSO Act, and sentenced accordingly \u2013 However, the High Court held that the act committed by the accused was of penetrative sexual assault punishable u/s. 4 and reduced the sentence \u2013 Correctness of \u2013 Held: Accused committed an offence of aggravated penetrative sexual", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "HEADNOTES Issues for consideration : The contention raised was that the High Court erred in holding the appellant guilty of off ence punishable under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) as Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not contended that the High Court committed error in recording the fi nding that Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not applicable in the present case as the recovery of the contraband substance was not made as a result of the personal search of the accused but on account of the search of his bag. The", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act, 2015 \u2013 Claim of Juvenility \u2013 Appellant convicted for various offences under IPC and POCSO Act was awarded death sentence \u2013 Death sentence affirmed by High Court \u2013 During the pendency of the present appeals, appellant Trial Court was directed to submit report after due inquiry \u2013 Report submitted, appellant\u2019s date of birth was found to be conclusively proved as 25.07.2002 \u2013 Date of incident being 15.12.2017, the appellant was aged 15 years 04 months and 20 days on the date of the incident", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Criminal Law \u2013 Investigation by CBI \u2013 When cannot be directed \u2013 Appellant no.1 accused of indulging in sale of psychotropic NDPS substance \u2013 It is the case of the appellant no.1 that while he was travelling with regard to illegally abducted, detained and a case under NDPS was foisted on him \u2013 Appellant no.1 and his father-appellant no.2 filed writ petition before High Court inter alia seeking direction to transfer the investigation to the CBI, which was declined \u2013 Revision petition filed by the", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Border Security Force Act, 1968 \u2013 Appellant-Commandant in Border Security Force was sentenced to 10 years\u2019 rigorous imprisonment; imposed fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and dismissed from service for allegedly permitting smuggling of contraband goods from India to Pakistan from his control \u2013 Held: Though in the armed forces, including the paramilitary forces, utmost discipline, unity of command are the sine qua non, the doctrine of proportionality still holds the field \u2013 In the present case, there is no direct evidence against the appellant \u2013 Except", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 s.37 \u2013 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u2013 s.436A \u2013 Appellant accused of committing offences punishable under NDPS Act has been in custody since 2015, if entitled to bail \u2013 Held: Recovery of ganja was made from the behest, and on the statement of one of the co-accused \u2013 Prosecution relied on that statement, as well as the confessional statement of the appellant \u2013 In addition, it also relied on the bank statements of one of the co-accused who allegedly disclosed that money used to be transferred", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court erred in confi rming the conviction and death sentence passed by trial court against appellant- accused for off ences punishable u/ss.302, 376, IPC and s.4, POCSO Act, 2012, despite serious lapses in the entire investigation. Penal Code, of Children from Sexual Off ences Act, 2012 \u2013 s.4 \u2013 Serious lapses in investigation, confi rmation of conviction and death sentence \u2013 Propriety: Held: s.162, CrPC does not prevent a Judge from looking into the record of the police investigation \u2013 Being a case of rape", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Penal Code, 1860 \u2013 ss.302, 201 and s.84 \u2013 Murder \u2013 Disappearance of evidence \u2013 Circumstantial evidence \u2013 Appreciation of \u2013 Plea of mental incapacity \u2013 Tenability \u2013 Allegations against appellant that, he took his two sons, aged about 9 years and canal, strangulated them to death, and threw their dead bodies into the canal \u2013 Trial court held appellant guilty u/ss.302 and 201 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment \u2013 High Court upheld the conviction and sentence \u2013 Held: There is no infirmity in the findings concurrently", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Penal Code, 1860 \u2013 ss.302, 364, 201 \u2013 The prosecution case was that the victim \u2018H\u2019, aged about 7 years, went missing on 8.10.1999 \u2013 On 10.10.1999, his dead body was found in the sugarcane field of \u2018Y\u2019 in Village \u2013 The victim\u2019s father (PW-1) recorded on 21.11.1999 \u2013 In the FIR, the informant alleged that he was told by PW-3 and PW-2 that they had seen A-3 taking deceased boy \u2018H\u2019 into her house on 08.10.1999 \u2013 PW-4 told him that on 09.10.1999 at about 6 AM, he had seen \u2018H\u2019 standing along with A-1", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Matter pertains to admissibility in evidence of the confessional statement recorded by the Narcotics Control Bureau officers u/s. 67 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and proving of possession prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 s. 67 \u2013 Confession statement made by an accused u/s. 67 before an offi cer of Narcotics Control Bureau \u2013 Admissibility in evidence: Held: Statement made by an accused and recorded u/s. 67", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u2013 s. 389 \u2013 The three respondents were convicted for the murder of the appellant\u2019s brother by the Trial Court and sentenced to life imprisonment \u2013 The order of conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court was challenged in appeal by the prayed before the High Court that they be released on bail pending the final disposal of their appeals by suspending the substantive order of sentence of life imprisonment \u2013 High Court suspended sentence and ordered their release on bail \u2013 On appeal, held: The endeavour on the", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 1.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 \u2013 s.52A \u2013 Non-compliance of \u2013 Held: \u2013 In the present case, search warrant under Exhibit P-4 acknowledged the fact that procedure contemplated under the NDPS Act was not followed \u2013 Also, one of the witnesses to the while the other turned hostile \u2013 Both the witnesses to the arrest memo were not examined \u2013 The record also indicates that an order was passed by the trial Judge permitting the prosecution to keep the seized materials within the police station, to be produced at a later point of", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: When the sentence of accused is suspended on appeal and he is released on bail, whether the High Court can cancel the bail without giving a reasonable opportunity, to the accused of being heard. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u2013 s. 389 \u2013 Suspension the appeal; release of appellant on bail - Appeal against conviction by the accused admitted by the High Court \u2013 Substantive sentence of the accused suspended and he was enlarged on bail \u2013 When appeal called for hearing, the High Court cancelled the bail of the accused, without giving", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 1.0}}
{"text": "Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: ss. 25, 35 \u2013 Applicability of s. 25 \u2013 When \u2013 Presumption of culpable mental state u/s. 35 \u2013 When, available \u2013On facts, truck found lying turtle and bags of powder scattered which on investigation found to be and the cleaner coming out of the truck and disclosed the name of the owner- appellant, and fled away \u2013 Conviction of the appellant u/s. 25 and imposition of imprisonment for 10 years by the courts below \u2013 On appeal, held: s. 25 provides that if an owner of a vehicle knowingly", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Customs Act, 1962 \u2013 ss.123, 127B \u2013 Seized goods specified u/s.123, remedy of settlement u/s.127B if available \u2013 Held: Per Krishna Murari, J. In cases of seizure within the customs area, s.123 cannot apply and the accused is entitled to the remedy of by the Bombay High Court in Suresh Raheja case states the correct position of law \u2013 Per Sanjay Karol, J. Proviso to s.127B(1) specifies certain categories of goods that are barred from the jurisdiction of the settlement commission including goods mentioned u/s.123 and goods relating to NDPS", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Constitution of India \u2013 Articles 226, 227 \u2013 Power of High Court to issue additional directions/orders in bail pleas \u2013 FIR was filed against accused u/ss.376, 506, IPC; POCSO Act, SCST Act and IT Act \u2013FSL Report was forwarded to the appellant- Inspectorwith a note that guidelines be undertaken however, the DNA examination was not carried out \u2013 In the meantime, the accused filed his bail plea \u2013 High Courtcalled for the case-diary, but the FSL Report was not included therewith \u2013 Appellant was found guilty of dereliction of dutyand direction", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration Whether the Special Judge could have conducted the proceedings against the present appellant for the offence punishable u/s.58 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; whether the Special Judge was justified in recording the findings against as the other police officers without even issuing notice to them. Headnotes\u2020 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 ss.36-A, 58 \u2013 In a trial regarding recovery of the opium from the accused persons, the Special Judge vide final judgment dated 22.02.2007", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order of conviction and death sentence to the appellant for offences punishable u/ss.302, 364 and 377 IPC and ss. 4 and 6 of the POCSO, for committing murder and brutal sexual assault of the 4 year old ss.302, 364, 377 \u2013 Protection of Children from Sexual offences Act, 2012 \u2013 ss.4, 5, 6, 29 \u2013 Murder, kidnapping and sexual assault \u2013 Case of brutal sexual assault and murder of four year old boy \u2013 Trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to death for", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration Appellant alleged to be an active member of the Popular Front of India (PFI) involved in planning to cause disturbance during the proposed visit of Prime Minister of India to Patna in 2022. Chargesheet filed against the appellant under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 153A & 18, 18A, 18B & 20, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Charges not framed yet. Appellant has undergone long incarceration, no likelihood of trial being completed in near future. High Court whether justified in denying bail. Headnotes\u2020 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 1.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "154 : 2024 INSC 716 Just Rights for Children Alliance & Anr. v. S. Harish & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 2161-2162 of 2024) 23 September 2024 [Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala,* J.] Issue for Consideration What is the scope of Section 15 of the Protection of Children child pornographic material is punishable under the POCSO; what is the true scope of Section 67B of the IT Act; what is the scope of Section 30 of the POCSO; what are the foundational facts necessary for invoking the statutory presumption of culpable mental state in respect of Section 15 of the", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in affirming the judgment of the trial court convicting and sentencing the accused appellants for the charge u/s. 8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes Narcotic Drugs Act, 1985 \u2013 s.8(c) r/w. s.20(b)(ii)(c) \u2013 Prosecution case that PW-1-Inspector and team members intercepted a vehicle and A-1 and A-2 were present in the vehicle \u2013 It was alleged that three bundles of ganja weighing around 80 kgs found lying in the vehicle were seized in the", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration As per the prosecution, secret information was received by PW-2 (Intelligence Officer/Inspector) as to Accused No. 4 (husband of Accused No.1) carrying contraband from a particular route in an auto rickshaw. Said secret information was recorded by her and reported (Zonal Officer, a Gazetted Officer). The raiding party chased the said auto rickshaw however, Accused No.4 allegedly abandoned it fleeing away from the scene. On conducting the search of the said auto rickshaw, the raiding party inter alia found 1.450 Kgs charas. It eventually searched the", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration In a case involving recovery of huge quantity of narcotic substance (232.5 kg of ganja), wherein the Respondent-accused was indicted as being the conspirator for procurement/supply of the ganja so recovered, High Court whether justified in granting anticipatory bail in registered for the offences punishable u/ss.8(c), 20(b)(ii)(c) and 29(1), Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 s.37 \u2013 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 \u2013 s.438 \u2013 Quantity of narcotic substance", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 1.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards whether a third party to a criminal proceeding got locus standi to challenge the order quashing the FIR lodged against the teacher by the father of the minor victim under the Penal Code, POCSO Act and SC/ST Act, for sexually assaulting the minor based on a compromise arrived at by the parties, in a Special Leave Petition u/Art.136; and whether the power to quash criminal proceedings or FIR in regard to heinous and serious offences having serious impact on society, is exercisable merely because the offender and victim or parents of the", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration Respondent no.1 was released on bail by the High Court for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors (in Financial Establishments) Procedure, 1973 \u2013 s.439 \u2013 Bail \u2013 The case of the prosecution is that one accused viz. K (President of a Society), in connivance with the co-accused, misappropriated an amount of \u20b979,54,26,963/- \u2013 Further case of the prosecution that respondent no.1 is a", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 1.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offences punishable u/ss. 450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s.34 of IPC and s.5(g)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) awarding death penalty u/ss. 376A and 302 IPC and of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for 10 years u/s. 450 of the IPC. Headnotes\u2020 Penal Code, 1860 \u2013 ss.450, 376(2)(i), 376D, 376A and 302 r/w. s. 34 \u2013 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 \u2013 s.5(g)/6 \u2013 Appellant contended that the instant case", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court erred in granting bail to the accused solely on the ground that she was suffering from HIV, without adverting to the mandate under Section 37(1)(b)(ii), NDPS Act, and without taking in view the quantity of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 s.37 \u2013 Recording a finding mandated u/s.37 is sine qua non for granting bail to accused under the Act \u2013 High Court erred in granting bail to accused solely on the ground that she was suffering from HIV, without adverting to", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration The appellant who was convicted for offence u/ss. 3(a) r/w s. 4 of the POCSO Act, and was awarded the sentence of ten years RI alongwith a fine, the quantum of sentence awarded, if justified. Headnotes Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 \u2013 ss. 3(a) Quantum of sentence \u2013 Conviction of the appellant for offences u/ss. 3(a)/4 and sentenced to ten years RI alongwith a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with a default clause to undergo SI for three months alongwith the compensation of Rs One Lakh to the victim by the courts below \u2013 In appeal before", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration High Court, if justified in disturbing the custody of the child, aged one year and five months at the time of passing the order, by handing over the custody of the child to her father and paternal side relatives from the custody of her maternal \u2013 Art. 226 \u2013 Writ of Habeas Corpus under, seeking custody of minor \u2013 Minor child aged 11 months, in custody of maternal side relatives after the unatural death of her mother \u2013 Arrest of father in connection with mother\u2019s death, however later released on bail \u2013", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 1.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration Appellant-accused, a Child in Conflict with Law on the date of the incident was convicted and sentenced u/ss.363, 342, 302, 201 r/w 302, IPC and s.6, POCSO Act. Trial, conviction and sentence of the appellant, if was vitiated on account of non-adherence to of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Headnotes Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 \u2013 ss.3, 9, 15, 18, 19 \u2013 Despite the appellant-accused having been found to be a juvenile and thus, a Child in Conflict with Law (CICL) on", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": "Issue for Consideration Interpretation of Section 52A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Headnotes\u2020 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 Interpretation of: Held: The provisions of NDPS Act are required to be interpreted keeping in mind the Act; as also the impact on the society as a whole \u2013 It has to be interpreted literally and not liberally, which may ultimately frustrate the object, purpose and Preamble of the Act. [Para 39(i)] Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 \u2013 s.37 \u2013 Nature of: Held: While", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56946 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2020 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna ====================================================== Vipin Kumar S/O Sri Navdeep Rai R/O Village- Kutubpur, P.S.- Bidupur, Distt.- CNR : BRHC010642962021 | Date of registration : 27-09-2021 | Decision Date : 15-11-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2236 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-130 Year-2020 Thana- BIKRAM District- Patna ====================================================== GANGA RAI @ GANGA PRASAD @ GANJA PRASAD Son of Late Ram Sawaroop Singh @ Ram Sawrup Rai Resident of CNR : BRHC010008282022 | Date of registration : 17-01-2022 | Decision Date : 25-07-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA,MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9237 of 2021 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Male, aged about 56 years, S/o Late Ramanand Sharma, R/o Dr. Zakir Hussain Institute Campus, Hartali More, Bailey Road, P.S. - Kotwali, District- CNR : BRHC010225022021 | Date of registration : 08-04-2021 | Decision Date : 12-07-2022 | Disposal Nature : WITHDRAWN Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 29764 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-483 Year-2020 Thana- RAJAON District- Banka ====================================================== 1. Sanjay Yadav, aged about 40 years, Male Son of Rano Yadav. 2. Mithilesh Yadav @ Mithlesh Yadav, CNR : BRHC010266062021 | Date of registration : 03-06-2021 | Decision Date : 12-01-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : THE CHIEF JUSTICE -,MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3176 of 2022 ====================================================== Gayatri Narayan Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Gayatri Narayan, female, aged about 51 years, D/O- Bansh Narayan, R/O- B-2 Vinita Villa, Bailey Road, CNR : BRHC010130432022 | Date of registration : 23-02-2022 | Decision Date : 30-09-2022 | Disposal Nature : DISPOSED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14446 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-189 Year-2020 Thana- SONO District- Jamui ====================================================== Raj Kumar Yadav, Male aged about 36 years, Son of Baguli Yadav. Resident of Village- Charkapathar, P.S CNR : BRHC010032522021 | Date of registration : 22-02-2021 | Decision Date : 11-01-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.1130 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-225 Year-2020 Thana- SALAKHUA District- Saharsa ====================================================== Mohan Yadav @ Mohan Kumar Yadav, male, aged about 30 years, Son of Neti Yadav Resident of village - CNR : BRHC010251762022 | Date of registration : 11-04-2022 | Decision Date : 22-06-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.16315 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-199 Year-2020 Thana- KRITYANAND NAGAR District- Purnia ====================================================== Akash Singh @ Akash Kumar, aged about 21 years, male, S/o Akhilesh Singh @ Mahaldar, R/o CNR : BRHC010054572021 | Date of registration : 02-03-2021 | Decision Date : 08-02-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.36246 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-53 Year-2022 Thana- SHYAMPUR BHATHA District- Sheohar ====================================================== RAJA KUMAR @ RAJABABU aged about 23 years son of Anoj Singh @ Anoj Kumar Singh, resident CNR : BRHC010501332022 | Date of registration : 12-07-2022 | Decision Date : 23-09-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH,MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5060 of 2021 ====================================================== M/s Kumar Distributors Pvt Ltd., Bailey Road, Near Shaguna More, Patna- 801503 (Opp DAV School), through its Director, Vikash Singh Male, aged about 42 Years, Son of CNR : BRHC010067242021 | Date of registration : 12-02-2021 | Decision Date : 22-02-2022 | Disposal Nature : DISMISSED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29444 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-102 Year-2022 Thana- SURSAND District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Arzu Rain Son Of Subhan Rain Resident Of Hanuman Nagar , Ward No 11, P.S- Sursand , Dist- CNR : BRHC010450292022 | Date of registration : 23-06-2022 | Decision Date : 01-09-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2642 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Aurangabad ====================================================== PAPPU SAHNI Son of Suresh Sahani Resident of Village - Sumerpati, P.O.- CNR : BRHC010003242022 | Date of registration : 20-01-2022 | Decision Date : 25-05-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.17187 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-270 Year-2020 Thana- KANTI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Md Mansur @ Bailun, aged about 55 years, Male, Son of Md. Isharail Resident of Village - CNR : BRHC010071592021 | Date of registration : 04-03-2021 | Decision Date : 07-03-2022 | Disposal Nature : WITHDRAWN Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.69395 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-278 Year-2018 Thana- AURAI District- Muzaffarpur ====================================================== Prem Kumar Singh @ Tiger @ Prem Singh Tiger, aged about 44 years, S/o Late Yugal Kishor Singh CNR : BRHC010832412021 | Date of registration : 14-12-2021 | Decision Date : 16-11-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 16731 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-231 Year-2019 Thana- DUMRAO District- Buxar ====================================================== Upendra Yadav @ Upendra Kumar @ Upendra Kumar Yadav, Male, aged about 22 years, Son of Mahesh Singh CNR : BRHC010073782021 | Date of registration : 03-03-2021 | Decision Date : 12-01-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 41084 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-380 Year-2020 Thana- KOILWAR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== 1. Chandani Devi, Female, aged about 32 years, Wife of Bablu Singh. 2. Bablu Singh, Male, aged CNR : BRHC010437822021 | Date of registration : 24-07-2021 | Decision Date : 12-01-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30610 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-544 Year-2019 Thana- BEGUSARAI MUFFASIL District- Begusarai ====================================================== Praveen Soni @ Parbinda, aged about 35 years, male, S/o Late Asharfi Sah R/o CNR : BRHC010254882021 | Date of registration : 05-06-2021 | Decision Date : 02-03-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11216 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-174 Year-2018 Thana- NAYA RAM NAGAR District- Munger ====================================================== 1. Subodh Kumar, aged about 28 years, Male Son of Jagdish Mahto, Resident of Bhattha, Dhira CNR : BRHC010745862020 | Date of registration : 08-02-2021 | Decision Date : 13-01-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.25412 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-356 Year-2020 Thana- KATIHAR NAGAR District- Katihar ====================================================== Rakesh Mahto @ Rakesh Chouhan @ Rakesh Kumar Mahto @ Chouhan, aged about 36 years CNR : BRHC010257342022 | Date of registration : 17-05-2022 | Decision Date : 06-07-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.18117 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2020 Thana- NAWADA MUFFASIL District- Nawada ====================================================== BACHCHU MANJHI S/o Late Mangal Manjhi R/o Vill- Bibipura Mushahari, P.S.- Muffasil, Distt- CNR : BRHC010079142021 | Date of registration : 08-03-2021 | Decision Date : 30-03-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14386 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2021 Thana- SABAUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Chhabilal Mandal @ Chabilal Mandal, aged about 25 years, Male, Son of Bijay Mandal, Resident of CNR : BRHC010173572022 | Date of registration : 23-03-2022 | Decision Date : 06-09-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 13690 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-95 Year-2019 Thana- NATWAR District- Rohtas ====================================================== Rahul Singh, aged about 27 years, Male Son of Late Abhimanyu Singh, Resident of Village- Dewal, CNR : BRHC010027942021 | Date of registration : 20-02-2021 | Decision Date : 11-01-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.52367 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Aurangabad ====================================================== DHARAMRAJ SINGH @ JUNNA Son of Haradev Yadav @ Hardev Sadhu Resident of CNR : BRHC010584212021 | Date of registration : 13-09-2021 | Decision Date : 24-03-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19391 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-140 Year-2021 Thana- JAGDISHPUR District- Bhojpur ====================================================== Sunny Shah (Male) aged about 25 years, S/o RAjendra Shah R/o Village and Post- Simruan, P.S.- CNR : BRHC010243242022 | Date of registration : 13-04-2022 | Decision Date : 24-08-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.29323 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Aurangabad ====================================================== Bhuteli Sahni Son of Late Sanjivan Sahni Resident of Village - Sumerpatti, CNR : BRHC010395282022 | Date of registration : 02-06-2022 | Decision Date : 14-09-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA KUMAR COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.56946 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8 Year-2020 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Patna ====================================================== Vipin Kumar S/O Sri Navdeep Rai R/O Village- Kutubpur, P.S.- Bidupur, Distt.- CNR : BRHC010676852021 | Date of registration : 08-10-2021 | Decision Date : 15-11-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.2585 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-117 Year-2020 Thana- KADWA District- Katihar ====================================================== Rudal Sharma, Male, aged about 26 years Son of Indra Nand Sharma Resident of Village - Dhangama, CNR : BRHC010011132022 | Date of registration : 19-01-2022 | Decision Date : 03-09-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.11227 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-162 Year-2020 Thana- AMDABAD District- Katihar ====================================================== 1. Binod Mandal, aged about 35 years, Gender-Male, Son of Kishan Mandal. 2. Bablu Mandal, aged CNR : BRHC010750232020 | Date of registration : 09-02-2021 | Decision Date : 13-01-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE NAWNEET KUMAR PANDEY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.9070 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-157 Year-2020 Thana- CHANDI District- Nalanda ====================================================== 1. Gautam Kumar, aged about 27 years, Male Son of Rambhavan Ram @ Rajbhavan Ram. 2. Vishnu Kumar @ CNR : BRHC010745202020 | Date of registration : 30-01-2021 | Decision Date : 02-03-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.46511 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-46 Year-2012 Thana- BATH District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== AMIT RANJAN @ AMIT KUMAR , aged about 31 years, Gendr-Male, son of Vinay Mandal, resident of CNR : BRHC010518092021 | Date of registration : 17-08-2021 | Decision Date : 03-03-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23104 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-2 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Sitamarhi ====================================================== Rajeev Mahto @ Rajeev Ranjan Kumar, Son Of Raj Nandan Mahto Resident Of Village CNR : BRHC010313882022 | Date of registration : 30-04-2022 | Decision Date : 19-09-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.59626 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-6 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Aurangabad ====================================================== RAJENDRA RAM @ RAJENDRA PRASAD S/o Lalit Ram R/o village- Chiksil, P.S.- CNR : BRHC010686792021 | Date of registration : 06-10-2021 | Decision Date : 29-03-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14386 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-201 Year-2021 Thana- SABAUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Chhabilal Mandal @ Chabilal Mandal, aged about 25 years, Male, Son of Bijay Mandal, Resident of CNR : BRHC010306262022 | Date of registration : 28-04-2022 | Decision Date : 06-09-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.62697 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-389 Year-2021 Thana- ALAMGANJ District- Patna ====================================================== Ranjeet Gope @ Ranjeet Kumar @ Ranjeet Roy, aged about 48 years, Male Son of Shayam Babu Gope, CNR : BRHC010739132021 | Date of registration : 27-10-2021 | Decision Date : 12-05-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : THE CHIEF JUSTICE -,MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5341 of 2020 ====================================================== Abhay Kumar Mishra, aged about 54 years, Male, Son of Late Chandrama Mishra Resident of G1, Girjanandan Enclave, I A S Colony, Ramjaipal Path, Rupaspur, Bailey Road, CNR : BRHC010222742020 | Date of registration : 06-03-2020 | Decision Date : 10-10-2022 | Disposal Nature : DISPOSED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.14418 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-123 Year-2020 Thana- SIKRAUL District- Buxar ====================================================== Satrughan Singh, aged about 51 years, Male Son of Late Parmeshwar Singh, Resident of Village - CNR : BRHC010035592021 | Date of registration : 22-02-2021 | Decision Date : 11-01-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.10780 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-538 Year-2020 Thana- SONEPUR District- Saran ====================================================== Manish Kumar, aged about 20 years, male, S/o Ramnath Chaudhary @ Bhulan Chaudhary, R/o village- CNR : BRHC010732712020 | Date of registration : 05-02-2021 | Decision Date : 10-02-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.23848 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-222 Year-2020 Thana- DURGAWATI District- Kaimur (Bhabua) ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Gupta @ Sunil Sah @ Bablu Sah, aged about 31 years, Male, son of Ramayan CNR : BRHC010305552022 | Date of registration : 07-05-2022 | Decision Date : 09-11-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.40381 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-460 Year-2020 Thana- HAJIPUR SADAR District- Vaishali ====================================================== Raushan Kumar @ Rausan Mahto (male) aged about 31 years S/O Kameshwar Mahto R/O Village- CNR : BRHC010430612021 | Date of registration : 20-07-2021 | Decision Date : 08-08-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : THE CHIEF JUSTICE -,MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.438 of 2022 ====================================================== M/s Jai Maa Service through its Prop. Smt. Reena Singh (F), aged about 48 years, W/o Sri Chunnu Singh, Resident of Lane No.8, Bailey Road, Rukanpura, Vijay Nagar, P.S.- CNR : BRHC010907492021 | Date of registration : 07-01-2022 | Decision Date : 21-02-2022 | Disposal Nature : DISPOSED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20890 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Aurangabad ====================================================== ANAND KUMAR SINGH SON OF RAJAN SINGH R/O VILLAGE- MASARH, P.S.- UDWANT NAGAR, CNR : BRHC010280572022 | Date of registration : 20-04-2022 | Decision Date : 05-09-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : THE CHIEF JUSTICE - COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA REQUEST CASE No.76 of 2021 ====================================================== Poly Kittu Imagings Pvt. Ltd. Rep. through the Director - Dr. Pramod Kumar, Male, Aged about 54 years, S/o Bindesh Kumar Singh, at - A - 301-302, Bailey Kunj Apartment, Mazar Gali, Near CNR : BRHC010780432021 | Date of registration : 13-12-2021 | Decision Date : 12-01-2022 | Disposal Nature : DISPOSED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.4156 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-70 Year-2020 Thana- RANIYATALAB District- Patna ====================================================== Juganu Singh, aged about 27 years, male, S/o- Late Ashok Singh Resident of Village- Ekbalganj, CNR : BRHC010686612021 | Date of registration : 04-10-2021 | Decision Date : 16-02-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No. 14439 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-525 Year-2017 Thana- BAKHTIYARPUR District- Patna ====================================================== Asho Rai @ Asho Kumar @ Asha Kumar Rai, aged about 45 years, Male, Son of Daun Rai @ Dauan CNR : BRHC010037972021 | Date of registration : 22-02-2021 | Decision Date : 11-01-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.66722 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-296 Year-2020 Thana- BARAUNI District- Begusarai ====================================================== Chhappan Kumar @ Sanjay, aged about 36 years, male, S/o Suresh Bind @ Maruti R/o village- CNR : BRHC010798972021 | Date of registration : 30-11-2021 | Decision Date : 16-02-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.30939 of 2021 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-67 Year-2011 Thana- SRINAGAR District- West Champaran ====================================================== 1. Santosh Chaudhary, male, aged about 38 years. 2. Oshier Chaudhary, male, aged about 35 CNR : BRHC010291312021 | Date of registration : 07-06-2021 | Decision Date : 22-04-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.70544 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-24 Year-2021 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Aurangabad ====================================================== PAPPU SAHNI S/o Late Suresh Sahani R/v- Sumerpati, Post- Sitalpur, P.S.- CNR : BRHC011017692022 | Date of registration : 09-12-2022 | Decision Date : 14-12-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.24751 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-49 Year-2022 Thana- AAJAM NAGAR District- Katihar ====================================================== ASGAR, aged about 35 years(M), Son of Shek Aainuddin, Resident of Village-Khoura, Dakol, CNR : BRHC010339472022 | Date of registration : 12-05-2022 | Decision Date : 14-11-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.13259 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-14 Year-2020 Thana- GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL COMP. District- Gaya ====================================================== VEERESH S/o Raj Pal R/o village- Rampur, Bujurag Aonia, P.S.- Bhamora, District- CNR : BRHC010148962022 | Date of registration : 11-03-2022 | Decision Date : 14-12-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 1.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 0.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}
{"text": " Judge : MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.4367 of 2022 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-151 Year-2021 Thana- SABAUR District- Bhagalpur ====================================================== Jeevak Singh, aged about 22 years, Male Son of Yogendra Singh, Resident of Village Rattichak, CNR : BRHC010035302022 | Date of registration : 31-01-2022 | Decision Date : 08-06-2022 | Disposal Nature : BAIL REJECTED Court : Patna High Court", "labels": {"IS_NDPS": 0.0, "COMMERCIAL_QUANTITY": 0.0, "CHILD_VICTIM": 1.0, "LONG_CUSTODY": 0.0, "BAIL_GRANTED": 0.0}}