Dismissed

Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC10 May 2013CRM-M/14485/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed a second bail petition filed by Randhir Singh, convicted under Section 15 of the NDPS Act for possession of 94 kgs of poppy-husk in a commercial quantity. The Court held that the full quantity attracts the provisions of Section 37 NDPS Act and denied bail to curb the rising trade of narcotic drugs.

What the court decided

AI extract

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-14485 of 2013 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-14485 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.05.2013

Randhir Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Haryana

¶9

..Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Bhag Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)

¶14

As is evident from the record, that first petition for regular bail bearing CRM-M No.26268 of 2012, filed by the petitioner was dismissed (as withdrawn), vide order dated 03.09.2012, by this Court.

¶15

Now the petitioner Randhir Singh @ Kala son of Prem Singh, has preferred the instant second petition for regular bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.26 dated 03.02.2012, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 15 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NDPS Act'), by the police of Police Station Parao, Ambala Cantt., invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶16

According to the prosecution that, in the wake of secret information to the effect that petitioner Randhir Singh and Gursevak Singh son of Avtar Singh used to deal in selling the poppy-husk, they will go in

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-14485 of 2013 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

the area of Puja Vihar, Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt. to sell the poppyhusk in their car bearing registration No.HR-01B-5709, the police sent the information to the Assistant Police Commissioner, Amabla Cantt. and arranged for the check post near Dukheri Railway Level. According to the prosecution, in the meantime, the car of the accused came, being driven by petitioner Randhir Singh son of Prem Singh. In the wake of checking, 94 kg of poppy-husk was found in their car.

¶20

Having completed all the codal formalities, the police has taken into the possession the indicated commercial quantity of 94 kgs of poppy husk, vide recovery memos. On the basis of aforesaid recovery, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

¶21

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable assistance and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

¶22

Ex facie, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that commercial quantity of poppy husk from the petitioner is not proved and since he has been falsely implicated by the police in this case, so, he is entitled to regular bail, lacks merit.

¶23

As is evident from the record that the commercial quantity of 94 kgs of poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the accused, so, the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are fully attracted to the instant case. The recovery of total mass of 94 kgs of poppy husk has to be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the commercial commodity and not half of it, as contrary urged on behalf of the petitioner.

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M-14485 of 2013 (O&M)

¶25

-3-

¶26

Moreover, it cannot possibly be denied that the tendency and frequency of such accused, to sell the narcotic drugs for their illegal gains, have been tremendously increasing day by day, which is adversely affecting the social fabric of the society and is to be curbed with heavy hand. Therefore, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶27

No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.

¶29

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the course of trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail.

¶30

May 10, 2013 naresh.k

¶31

( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) Judge

Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Randhir Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Radhey Shyam Aggarwal & Others Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Shashi Mahla Vs State of Punjab

Sahil Khurana and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

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

Durgo Bai & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rahul and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.