Full Text
Translation output
\ $-24 & 25 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRL.M.C. 5210/2014
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. AroraandMr. TausifAlam, Advocates
CRL.M.C. 5210/2014
NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. AroraandMr. TausifAlam, Advocates
VERSUS
LAL RINHNGETA & ORS
Through:
Respondent Mr. R.A. Worso Zimik and Mr.Soreishang Kharay, Advocates for respondents
Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
CRL.M.C. No. 5323/2014 NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Arora and Mr. TausifAlam, Advocates
Through:
Respondent Mr. R.A. Worso Zimik and Mr.Soreishang Kharay, Advocates for respondents
Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
CRL.M.C. No. 5323/2014 NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU
Petitioner
Through: Mr. B.S. Arora and Mr. TausifAlam, Advocates
VERSUS
LALRUATSANGA & ANR
Through:
Respondent Mr. R.A. Worso Zimik and Mr.Soreishang Kharay, Advocates for respondents
Mr. Ashish Dutta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
Through:
Respondent Mr. R.A. Worso Zimik and Mr.Soreishang Kharay, Advocates for respondents
Mr. Ashish Dutta, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State
CORAM;
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI
14.10.2015 The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for ca:ncellation of bailgranted to the respondents by orderdated^
2015:DHC:11285 15.05.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, New Delhi.
During the hearing of the petition, counsel for the petitioner submitted that his main grievance is the observation made by the learned Special Judge while granting bail to the respondents, which according to counsel for the petitioner may affect the trial ofthe case on merit. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that he has been granted bail not only on the basis ofthe observations made, by which the petitioner is aggrieved, but also on the grounds mentionedin the petition itself
I have heard the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and also perused the impugned order. After going through the contents ofthe petition as well as impugned order, this court is ofthe opinion that the present petition can be disposed ofwith the direction that any observation made by learned Special Judge in the order dated
28.04.2014 granting bail to the respondents shall not affect the trial and the merits ofthe case. Itis ordered accordingly.
With aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of
OCTOBER 14, 2015 pkb 2015:DHC:11285
14.10.2015 The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section
439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for ca:ncellation of bailgranted to the respondents by orderdated^
2015:DHC:11285 15.05.2014 passed by the learned Special Judge, NDPS, New Delhi.
During the hearing of the petition, counsel for the petitioner submitted that his main grievance is the observation made by the learned Special Judge while granting bail to the respondents, which according to counsel for the petitioner may affect the trial ofthe case on merit. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that he has been granted bail not only on the basis ofthe observations made, by which the petitioner is aggrieved, but also on the grounds mentionedin the petition itself
I have heard the submissions made by counsel for both the sides and also perused the impugned order. After going through the contents ofthe petition as well as impugned order, this court is ofthe opinion that the present petition can be disposed ofwith the direction that any observation made by learned Special Judge in the order dated
28.04.2014 granting bail to the respondents shall not affect the trial and the merits ofthe case. Itis ordered accordingly.
With aforesaid observations, the present petition stands disposed of
OCTOBER 14, 2015 pkb 2015:DHC:11285
JUDGMENT