Allowed

Charno & Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2010CRM-M/20520/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a bail petition filed under Section 439 CrPC for regular bail in a Section 15 NDPS case. The court observed that no prosecution witnesses had been examined and the petitioners were females in custody since FIR registration, deeming release appropriate pending trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate Ludhiana.

Charno & Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-20520 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-20520 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 16, 2010

¶5

Charno w/o Mohinder Pal and others

........Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

.......Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶12

Present: Mr. R.P. Dhir, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G. Punjab.

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.68 dated 16.6.2009, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the Act') registered at Police Station Division No.8, Ludhiana.

¶16

As per the prosecution case 123 kg 500 gms of poppy husk was recovered from the petitioners and their co-accused while they were travelling in a bus.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are ladies and are in custody since 16.6.2009. No prosecution witness has been examined so far.

¶18

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. On a query put up by this Court, learned State counsel on the

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-20520 of 2010 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

instructions from ASI Gurbachan Singh has submitted that the petitioners are not involved in any other criminal case.

¶22

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are in custody since 16.6.2009 and no prosecution witness has been examined so far and the fact that recovery was effected from a bus from 6 persons and the petitioners are ladies, it would be just and expedient to release the petitioners on bail. Whether the petitioners are guilty of the alleged offence or not would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial.

¶23

Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed. Petitioners be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate Ludhiana.

¶24

(SABINA) September 16, 2010 JUDGE Anand

Charno & Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Charno & Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jasvir Kaur & Orsq Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Joginder Ram Vs Davinder Kumar

Sarwan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harvail Singh Vs State of Haryana

Tej Kaur Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sarabjit Singh Vs State of Punjab