[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Hiteshbhai Dhirubhai Olakiya vs The State Of Gujarat on 24 July, 2025
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal
1
ITEM NO.17 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-E
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s). 4947/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order
dated 14-10-2024 in CRMA No. 20378/2024 passed by the
High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad]
HITESHBHAI DHIRUBHAI OLAKIYA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF GUJARAT Respondent(s)
IA No. 86210/2025 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE
IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
Date : 24-07-2025 This matter was called on for
hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ MITHAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Somesh Chandra Jha, AOR
Ms. Saumya Dwivedi, Adv.
Mr. Animesh Rajoriya, Adv.
Mr. Akash Kishore, Adv.
Mr. Anil Rathod, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, AOR
Ms. Abhipsa Mohanty, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
KANCHAN CHOUHAN 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Date: 2025.07.24
17:52:15 IST
Reason:
2
2. The petitioner is charged for offences punishable
under Sections 8(C), 21(C) and 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 for
possessing 2400 bottles RX codeine phosphate syrup.
3. The submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the petitioner possesses a valid
license under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, which is
valid and has not expired. It is only on account of
the fact that the license of the person to whom the
stock was sold, has expired that the petitioner has
been charged for the above offence.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed
out that there was one another case of similar nature
against the petitioner wherein his bail application
has been rejected even by this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner is trying to
distinguish the case on the ground that in the earlier
case, the person to whom the codeine phosphate syrup
was sold by him was not having a valid license whereas
in the case at hand he had the license but the same
had stood expired.
3
6. The petitioner is in jail since 11.06.2024. The
chargesheet was filed on 07.07.2024 but till date the
charges have not been framed against him.
7. In view of the above, the trial is likely to take
sufficient time. Accordingly, we consider it
appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on bail provided
the petitioner shall cooperate and participate during
the trial.
8. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail
subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed
by the trial court commensurating with the charges
framed against him, provided he cooperates with the
trial and appears before the Trial Court as and when
required.
9. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition stands
disposed of.
10. Pending applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(KANCHAN CHOUHAN) (NIDHI MATHUR) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
[ad_2]
Source link