In a bail petition under the NDPS Act where goods were allegedly found in possession while carrying another's consignment, the court dismissed the plea as earlier petitions were dismissed without fresh grounds or law.
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-5050 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-5050 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision : May 2nd , 2012
Kashmiri Lal
.... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
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?
Present Mr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, DAG, Punjab, for the State.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Kashmiri Lal, the petitioner has sought regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.236 dated 24.12.2010 at Police Station Machhiwara, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana for an offence punishable under sections 22 and 25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have been found keeping in his possession some manufactured drugs. According to him, the petitioner is a goods carrier. He has further submitted that the goods were sent by Baljit Singh
Crl. Misc. No.M-5050 of 2012
2
from Ludhiana and had to be delivered to Bhardwaj Medical Hall, Machhiwara. He has further submitted that Annexure P3, affidavit of Ramesh Khera is there to support this submission. According to him, the sender and consignee have been let off by the police and the petitioner has been arrested.
Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that there is no bill or bilty produced by the petitioner about the drugs in question. According to him, the earlier petition of the petitioner, Kashmiri Lal for regular bail already stands dismissed vide orders dated 29.8.2011 and that there is no fresh ground for admitting the petitioner to bail. He has further submitted that this fact has not even been clearly mentioned in the petition by the petitioner.
Kashmiri Lal, the petitioner had earlier brought Criminal Misc. No.M-20803 of 2011 for bail in this case. His petition was dismissed alongwith various other petitions of similar nature vide orders dated 29.8.2011. No fresh circumstance has been brought on record for entertaining or allowing this second petition for bail.
Criminal Appeal No. 644 of 2007 titled Union of India Vs. Pradeep Shivram Dhond and anr., is yet to be decided and Criminal Appeal No. 1845 of 2010 titled Jagdish Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. , cited by learned senior counsel for the petitioner is a decision on its own facts. No law of general application has been laid down in this case. Moreover, this decision was there when the earlier petition of the petitioner for bail had been dismissed. So, this case does not provide any fresh ground for allowing bail to the petitioner.
Crl. Misc. No.M-5050 of 2012
3
In view of the above, the petitioner is not found entitled to the concession of bail. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
May 2nd , 2012 som
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant regular bail when repetitions of the same facts exist without fresh circumstances.
Whether cited appellate decisions lay down new law of general application to allow bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. Pradeep Shivram Dhond and anr.Referred¶24
Criminal Appeal No. 644 of 2007 titled Union of India Vs. Pradeep Shivram Dhond and anr.
Jagdish Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr.Referred¶24
Criminal Appeal No. 1845 of 2010 titled Jagdish Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
KASHMIRI LAL
STATE OF PUNJAB
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
