Allowed

Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Nov 2010CRM-M/27297/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC for an NDPS offence, the High Court granted regular bail noting the petitioner was not in possession of the truck from which contraband was recovered. The court released the petitioner on bail with conditions to satisfy local magistrates.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed; petitioner to be admitted to bail subject to satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kathal.

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-27297 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-27297 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: November 16, 2010

Mohinder Singh

........Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .......Respondent

¶9

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present : Mr. Manoj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Satyavir Singh Yadav, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

SABINA, J.

¶14

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.22 dated 21.3.2010, under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Dhand, District Kaithal.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the truck belonging to the petitioner was recovered in an accidental condition. From the said truck 18 bags of poppy husk were allegedly recovered. The petitioner had given the truck to Pala Singh on 11.2.2010. Pala Singh was to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner. In this regard, Pala Singh had executed an affidavit (Annexure P-1). The petitioner is in custody since 25.4.2010. At the relevant time, the truck in question was not in possession of the petitioner. The said Pala Singh is in custody.

¶16

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-27297 of 2010 (O&M)

¶18

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the petition. On a query put up by this Court, the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Shiv Charan, has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case.

¶19

Keeping in view the fact that at the relevant time petitioner was not in possession of the truck as he had given the truck to Pala Singh on 11.2.2010 and the said Pala Singh was to pay Rs.10,000/- per month to the petitioner and the said Pala Singh is in custody, it would be just and expedient to release the petitioner on bail. Whether the petitioner is guilty of the alleged offence or not would more appropriately be gone into and considered during trial.

¶20

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

¶21

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶22

November 16, 2010 Anand

Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana

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

Ram Rati and Ors. Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Manmohan Singh and Anr. Vs Amarjit Kaur

Surinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

George Shubh @ Kamal and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Arminder Singh @ Tippu Vs State of Punjab etc.

Baldeva Vs Kamla Devi