Allowed

Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Oct 2012CRM-M/19295/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a bail petition for an accused booked under the NDPS Act. The court noted the lack of spot arrest, delayed arrest months after the incident, questionable identification, and recovery of contraband from an unrelated vehicle, granting interim bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail pending trial subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-19295 of 2012

¶2

...1..

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-19295 of 2012 Date of Decision : October 09, 2012

Tarsem Singh @ Sema

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Suresh Kumar Arya, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶15

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to

¶16

Tarsem Singh @ Sema, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it was impossible for the police people to identify the petitioner in the light of a torch at 12.30 a.m. He further submits that the recovery of three bags of the poppy husk was effected from a jeep of which, the petitioner was not the owner. He further contends that the alleged occurrence is of 11.07.2010 while the petitioner was arrested on 06.02.2012, i.e after about 17 months of the occurrence. He further submits that the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State has

¶19

...2..

¶20

Criminal Misc. No.M-19295 of 2012

¶21

opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Heard.

¶23

The petitioner was not arrested from the spot. He was allegedly identified in the torch light at 12.30 a.m on the intervening night of 10/11.07.2010. He was arrested on 06.02.2012 i.e after about 17 months of the occurrence. The alleged contraband was recovered from a jeep to which the petitioner had no connection. The petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case. The conscious possession of the contraband with the petitioner has to be established during the course of trial.

¶24

Without commenting much on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner-Tarsem Singh @ Sema, s/o Jarnail Singh, r/o Village Samundargarh Chhanan, P.S.Dhuri, District Sangrur, is ordered to be released on bail, during the pendency of the trial subject to his furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.

¶25

October 09, 2012 seema

¶26

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

Tarsem Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarsem 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

Mohitinder Bawa Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gurmeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Om Parkash & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Jaspal Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Rupinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab