Dismissed

Skinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Dec 2012CRM-M/32323/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a bail petition under Section 439 CrPC. The court distinguished the facts from a cited Supreme Court case, noting that the recovered quantity of sealed vials and strips was significantly larger than the small lot in the precedent and fell under commercial quantity.

What did the court decide?

Bail petition dismissed; no discretionary relief granted to the petitioner.

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

¶1

CRM No.M-32323 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-32323 of 2012 Date of decision: 5.12.2012

Skinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

¶11

Present: Mr.JS Brar, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Mr.Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab with ASI Surjit Singh

¶13

¶14

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)

¶15

By filing the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No.85, dated 20.4.2012, registered under Sections 22/21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychtropic Substances Act, at Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 13 vials of REXTAS of 100 ML each and 20 strips of tables make Karry containing 10 tables each were recovered, whereas for the purpose of sample only one vial and one strip were taken. Therefore, the recovery cannot be said to be a commercial quantity. He relies on paras five and seven of the judgment rendered in Gaunter Edwin Kircher vs. State of Goa, Secretariat Panji, Goa (1993) 3 Supreme Court Cases 145. He further

¶17

CRM No.M-32323 of 2012 2

¶18

submits that some empty strips of Amphetamine, which were thrown by someone in front of the house of the petitioner were recovered as per FIR.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondent-State refers to Annexure P-2 and states that the recovered contrabands fall under the category of commercial quantity. He further submits that the vials and the tablets were being manufactured by the same company.

¶20

Heard and perused.

¶21

All the vials and the strips recovered from the petitioner dominantly are of the same type and manufactured by the same company. In the cited case, the recovery of 7gms/5 gms of loose charas for personal use was recovered, whereas in the present case, the recovery of 13 vials of REXTAS 100 ML each and 20 strips of tables make KARRY containing 10 tables each, which were sealed, were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The fact that the sample should be from all the vials and all the strips, would be gone into at the time of trial by the learned trial Court. The facts of the cited case are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to grant any discretionary relief to the petitioner. As such the present petition fails and is dismissed.

¶22

(JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE

¶23

5.12.2012 gsv

Skinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Skinder 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajbir and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Ashok Mittal Vs State of Haryana

Ranjit Singh Vs Avtar Singh and Another

Shanti Devi Vs State of Haryana

Manoj Kumr Vs State of Punjab

Radhey Sham Vs State of Punjab and Anr.