Allowed

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Oct 2010CRM-M/27659/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The court noted that the petitioner was not the car owner, consciousness of possession was not yet established, and prosecution witnesses were official, making tampering unlikely.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to bail upon furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

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

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-27659 of 2010

¶3

.....

¶4

Date of decision:13.10.2010

Surjit Singh

.....Petitioner v.

State of Punjab

.....Respondent ....

Present: Mr. Iqbal Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Gazi Mohd. Umair, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶11

S.S. Saron, J.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶13

The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 1.2.2010 for the offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.

¶14

The FIR in the case has been registered on the information sent

¶15

by ASI Bhola Singh, In-charge, Police Post, Sito Guno, Police Station Sadar, Abohar. ASI Bhola Singh along with other Police officials had setup a chock-post on the Abohar-Hanumargarh road in the area of Village Ramsaran for checking vehicles. A black colour car came from the side of Hanumangarh which was signalled to stop. The driver of the car disclosed his name as Baljit Singh and the person sitting on the adjacent seat disclosed his name as Surjit Singh alias Harjit Singh (petitioner). Both the occupants appeared to be tense. At that time, one Tarsem Singh came at the place and he was joined in the Police party by the Police. ASI Bhola Singh

¶16

Cr. Misc. No.M-27659 of 2010

¶17

[2]

¶18

stated that he suspected some intoxicant material in the car of the occupants and they had a right to get themselves searched from a Magistrate or from a gazetted Officer. However, both the occupants stated that they had faith in ASI Bhola Singh and he could search their car. The consent memo in this regard was prepared which was attested by the witnesses. The car was searched and from the dickey of the car four plastic bags were recovered and checked. These were found to contain poppy husk. The each bag contained 35 Kgs. of poppy husk and the total poppy husk came to 140 Kgs.

¶19

The petitioner is not the owner of the car and he was sitting at the adjacent seat of the driver. It is to be determined after evidence has been led whether the petitioner was in conscious possession of the contraband that was recovered and whether he had knowledge of the same. There is no other case against the petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on 1.2.2010. Thereafter, challan was filed on 13.5.2010. The charges were framed on 11.10.2010. Out of total witnesses cited by the prosecution, none has been examined till date. The trial in the case is likely to take time. All the witnesses except one, namely, Tarsem Singh, who was joined in the investigation are official witnesses.

¶20

In the circumstances, the petitioner is unlikely to tamper with the witnesses of the prosecution as they are all official witnesses. The conscious possession at this stage cannot be said to be established. Besides, the fact that no other case is registered against the petitioner it can be said that while the petitioner was on bail he is unlikely to indulge in trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

¶21

In the circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court shall be

¶22

Cr. Misc. No.M-27659 of 2010

¶23

[3]

¶24

admitted to bail.

¶25

The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

¶26

October 13, 2010.

¶27

(S.S. Saron) Judge

¶28

hsp

Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surjit Singh 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

Subeg Singh Vs State of Haryana

Mamta Vs State of Haryana

Surinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Narbir Vs State of Haryana

Chander Vs State of Haryana

Dalvir Singh Vs State of Punjab