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.

Md. Salim @ Md. Salim Ansari Vs. the State of Bihar

Md. Salim @ Md. Salim Ansari vs The State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 25, 2012
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/975496

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
Patna 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

Md. Salim @ Md. Salim Ansari

Respondent

The State of Bihar

Excerpt

patna high court cr.misc. no.1171 of 2012 (2) dt.25-01-2012 in the high court of judicature at patna criminal miscellaneous no.1171 of 2012 ====================================================== md. salim @ md. salim ansari .... .... petitioner. versus the state of bihar .... .... opposite party. ====================================================== appearance : for the petitioner. : mr. s.a. azim, advocate. for the opposite party. : mr. uma shankar pd. singh, a.p.p. ====================================================== coram: honourable mr. justice dinesh kumar singh oral order (per: honourable mr. justice dinesh kumar singh”25. 01-2012 heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the state. the petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with industrial p.s. case no. 36/09, g. r. no. 2084 of 2009/tr. no. 08 of 2010 registered for the offence under sections 20, 22 and 25 of the n.d. p.s. act. recovery is of 33 kg. 900 grams of ganja. it is submitted that now evidence has come that place of recovery does not belong to the petitioner. considering the fact that recovery is of commercial quantity and the fact that the trial is going on, this court is not inclined to revise my earlier order. however, it is expected from the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a patna high court cr.misc. no.1171 of 2012 (2) dt.25-01-2012 period of nine months and if the trial will not be concluded within a period of nine months, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. with this observation, this application is rejected again. let the order be faxed to the learned c.j.m., bhagalpur in connection with industrial p.s. case no. 36/09, g. r. no. 2084/09/tr. no. 08 of 2010 at the cost of the petitioner. (dinesh kumar singh, j.) u.k./-

Full Judgment

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1171 of 2012 (2) dt.25-01-2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.1171 of 2012 ====================================================== Md. Salim @ Md. Salim Ansari .... .... Petitioner. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner. : Mr. S.A. Azim, Advocate. For the Opposite Party. : Mr. Uma Shankar Pd. Singh, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH”

25. 01-2012 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner has renewed his prayer for bail in connection with Industrial P.S. Case No. 36/09, G. R. No. 2084 of 2009/Tr. No. 08 of 2010 registered for the offence under Sections 20, 22 and 25 of the N.D. P.S. Act. Recovery is of 33 Kg. 900 Grams of Ganja. It is submitted that now evidence has come that place of recovery does not belong to the petitioner. Considering the fact that recovery is of commercial quantity and the fact that the trial is going on, this Court is not inclined to revise my earlier order. However, it is expected from the learned trial court to conclude the trial within a Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1171 of 2012 (2) dt.25-01-2012 period of nine months and if the trial will not be concluded within a period of nine months, petitioner will be at liberty to renew his prayer for bail. With this observation, this application is rejected again. Let the order be faxed to the learned C.J.M., Bhagalpur in connection with Industrial P.S. Case No. 36/09, G. R. No. 2084/09/Tr. No. 08 of 2010 at the cost of the petitioner. (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) U.K./-

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial