Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Jaideep Singh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Jaideep Singh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 18, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1045652

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Jaideep Singh

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

m.cr.c.no.1693/2013 18.3.2013 shri m.s.jain, advocate for the applicant. shri r.k.kesarwani, pl for the state. this is the firs.bail application filed by the applicant under section 438 of the cr.p.c.for grant of anticipatory bail. the applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with crime no.37/2012 registered at p.s.ghamapur, district jabalpur for the offence punishable under section 8/21 of the ndps act. learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case. he has no criminal past. during the investigation of aforesaid crime, co-accused ajju @ ajay and bablu @ dilip disclosed that they purchased contraband (smack) from dilip singh and applicant jaideep singh. in the receipt taken from the possession of co-accused ajju @ ajay, name has been written has jaibeer singh and the applicant is not jaibeer singh. the applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail. learned counsel for the state has opposed the application. i have perused the case diary. during the investigation, account numbers of applicant and co-accused were traced. account no.63042370837 of state bank of india, maujakhedi is in the name of jaideep singh and number of times, cash was deposited at malviya chowk branch, jabalpur. thus, there is prima facie evidence against the applicant under section 8/21 read with section 29 of the ndps act wherein custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further investigation, therefore, i do not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail. application is hereby dismissed. (g.s.solanki) judge pb

Full Judgment

M.Cr.C.No.1693/2013 18.3.2013 Shri M.S.Jain, Advocate for the applicant.

Shri R.K.Kesarwani, PL for the State.

This is the fiRs.bail application filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.37/2012 registered at P.S.Ghamapur, District Jabalpur for the offence punishable under Section 8/21 of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that applicant is falsely implicated in this case.

He has no criminal past.

During the investigation of aforesaid crime, co-accused Ajju @ Ajay and Bablu @ Dilip disclosed that they purchased contraband (smack) from Dilip Singh and applicant Jaideep Singh.

In the receipt taken from the possession of co-accused Ajju @ Ajay, name has been written has Jaibeer Singh and the applicant is not Jaibeer Singh.

The applicant is a reputed citizen of the locality, in the event of arrest, his reputation will be tarnished, therefore, he be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the application.

I have perused the case diary.

During the investigation, account numbers of applicant and co-accused were traced.

Account No.63042370837 of State Bank of India, Maujakhedi is in the name of Jaideep Singh and number of times, cash was deposited at Malviya Chowk Branch, Jabalpur.

Thus, there is prima facie evidence against the applicant under Section 8/21 read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act wherein custodial interrogation of the applicant is necessary for further investigation, therefore, I do not find it a fit case to enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.

Application is hereby dismissed.

(G.S.Solanki) Judge PB

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial