Court granted bail to the petitioner in a Section 20 NDPS case upon direction to the trial court to conclude prosecution evidence by 30.11.2011, barring any delay caused by the petitioner.
Trial court directed to conclude prosecution evidence by 30.11.2011; petitioner to be released on bail if evidence not concluded by then.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl. Misc No. M 23924 of 2011
::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc No. M 23924 of 2011 Date of decision : October 21, 2011
Naleen Kumar Mishra alias Nalik Kumar Mishra @ Naveen Mishra
...... Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
*******
Present : Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S.Chandumajra, DAG Punjab
*******
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral)
The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No.199, dated 28.8.2010, registered under Section 20 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station A-Division Amritsar.
On 9.8.2011, the following contention was noticed :-
“ Learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this Court in Hem Raj v. State of Punjab , reported as 2004 (1) C.R.C (Criminal) 359 and stated that for this alleged recovery of 1.5 Kilogram of charas the petitioner has now been in custody for almost one year and there is no prospect of the trial concluding in the near future.”
Counsel for the respondent, on instructions from ASI Panna
Lal, states that the prosecution would conclude its entire evidence on two
Crl. Misc No. M 23924 of 2011 ::2::
hearings.
In the circumstances, the trial Court is directed to grant two opportunities to the prosecution to lead its entire evidence uptill 30.11.2011, and if by that date the entire prosecution evidence is not concluded, to release the petitioner on bail to its satisfaction. However, this order shall not apply if the prosecution evidence is not concluded by the said date due to any act on the part of the petitioner.
This petition is dismissed in the above terms.
( AJAY TEWARI ) October 21, 2011. JUDGE `kk'
2 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the accused in a NDPS case pending trial.
Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude prosecution evidence within a specified timeframe.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hem Raj v. State of PunjabRelied on¶23
2004 (1) C.R.C (Criminal) 359
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Naleen Kumar Mishra alias Nalik Kumar Mishra @ Naveen Mishra
State of Punjab
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
