Dismissed

Jorawar Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2011CRM-M/11310/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana refused regular bail in a case under the NDPS Act. The petitioner, found possessing heroin in a vehicle with three others, argued that the purity of his share justified release. The Court rejected this, holding that the total quantity recovered constituted a commercial quantity.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's plea for regular bail was dismissed.

Jorawar Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-11310 of 2011 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-11310 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.04.2011

Jorawar Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH

¶11

Present: - Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

¶14

ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL)

¶15

Present petition has been filed seeking regular bail in case FIR No.7 dated 17.1.2011 under Sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985, Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala.

¶16

Record reveals that four accused, namely, Kewal Singh, Ayshad Iqbal, Zafar Iqbal ad Jorawar Singh (present petitioner) were coming in one car bearing registration No.JK-02-AL-2229 on 17.1.2011. They were stopped and given option in accordance with NDPS Act and thereafter checked by DSP-D. On checking petitioner was found carrying 230 gms of heroin while Ayshad Iqbal, Zafar Iqbal and Kewal Singh were found in possession of 300 gms, 200 gms and 270 gms of heroin, respectively. All the four accused were in the same and one vehicle.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as per the

¶18

-2-

¶19

Crl. Misc. No. M-11310 of 2011 (O&M)

¶20

scientific report material recovered from the possession of the petitioner was found containing 40.29% diacetylmorphine that is why petitioner is entitled to be released on bail considering total narcotic substance found in the material.

¶21

I do not agree with the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Even if for the sake of arguments, 40.29% diacetylmorphine is taken into account then also if entire quantity recovered from all the four accused is taken into account, it would come under the definition of commercial quantity.

¶22

Considering totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

(Alok Singh) Judge

¶25

April 26, 2011 R.S.

Jorawar Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jorawar 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

(O&M)Sanjay Jain Vs Suraj Bhan

Hari Chand Vs Punjab & Haryana High Court

Tejbir Vs State of Haryana

Baljeet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Karambir Singh Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Bahadur Singh Vs State of Punjab