Allowed

Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 May 2013CRM-M/10535/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In bail application under Cr.M.No. M-10535 of 2013, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner accused of offences under IPC and NDPS Act. The court noted that the only connecting evidence was a disclosure statement by a co-accused, conceding no other direct evidence existed.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail granted to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl.M.No. M-10535 of 2013 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl.M.No. M-10535 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 24.5.2013

¶4

Jarnial Singh @ Jaila

¶5

................Petitioner vs. State of Punjab

¶6

.................Respondents

¶7

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri

¶8

Present: Sh. N.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Sh. K.D. Sachdeva, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

¶10

K.C. Puri, J.

¶11

Jarnial Singh @ Jaila – petitioner has applied for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 187 dated 22.8.2012 under Sections 307, 429 IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act (Later on Sections 21, 22, 29/61/85 of the NDPS Act were added), registered at police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar.

¶12

As per allegation of the prosecution, police party was present in connection with investigation of FIR No.107 dated 22.8.2012 under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act, at T-point in the area of

¶13

Crl.M.No. M-10535 of 2013 -2-

¶14

Balath near Kartapur. One Alto car bearing registration No. PB 02BP-5005 came and the occupants of the car fired. The police officials retaliated the fire. The said car struck against the buffalo and stopped. Charajneet Shori @ Gagan and Gurjit Singh were stated to be arrested alongwith weapon. As per the FIR two other persons Surjit Singh and Kashmir Singh ran away from the place of occurrence. During the investigation, 1 kg of heroin is alleged to be recovered from the fields.

¶15

The case of the prosecution is that Charanjit Shori coaccused made disclosure statement that petitioner was helping them in transporting the contraband (heroin). The petitioner is stated to be in custody since 28.8.2012.

¶16

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Dhanwinder Singh, is fair enough to concede that except disclosure statement by Charanjit Shori, no other evidence connecting the accused in smuggling of contraband is on the file. He has further conceded that as per the prosecution story, petitioner was not the occupant of the car, which has confronted with the police party.

¶17

So, without commenting on the merits of the case, bail is granted to the petitioner Jarnial Singh, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jarnail 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

Jatinder Vs State of Haryana

Raj Kumari Vs State of Punjab

Shivam @ Subahm Vs State of Punjab

Malkiat Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Karam Chand and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Sat Pal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.