Allowed

Satbhushan and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Sept 2013CRM-M/16449/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted regular bail to petitioners charged under the NDPS Act. Relying on established precedent, the court held that the entitlement to bail arose automatically because the prosecution failed to file the final charge sheet within the mandatory 180-day limit, rendering further consideration of merits unnecessary for the bail decision.

What did the court decide?

Petition for regular bail accepted; petitioners ordered to be released on bail subject to specific affidavits and furnishing of adequate bail and surety bonds to the trial court.

Satbhushan and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-16449 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-16449 of 2013 Date of Decision: - 02.09.2013

¶5

Satbhushan and another

.....Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. R.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State.

¶13

¶14

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶15

Petitioners-Satbhushan son of late Satpal and Mangat Rai son of Jagdish Rai, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against them, vide FIR No.209 dated 23.10.2012, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable under Section 22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NDPS Act'), by the police of Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur, invoking the provisions of Sections 439, 167 Cr.P.C. and 36(4) of the NDPS Act.

¶16

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

¶18

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.03 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CRM No.M-16449 of 2013 -2-

¶20

through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶21

What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the petitioners were arrested in the present case on 23.10.2012 and remanded to custody on 24.10.2012. The prosecution did not submit the final police report (challan), within the statutory period of 180 days. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for bail on 23.04.2013. Undisputedly, the police has submitted the final police report (challan) on 07.05.2013 in the present case. Meaning thereby, since the prosecution has not submitted the final police report (challan), within the statutory period, so, the petitioners are entitled to regular bail, under the provisions of Sections 439, 167(2) Cr.P.C. and 36(4) of the NDPS Act, in view of the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in case Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi Vs. State, GNCTD and others, 2012 (4) RCR (Criminal) 875.

¶22

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above 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 is hereby accepted.

¶23

The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their filing specific affidavits that they will not indulge in such illegal activities in future and on furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶24

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.03 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CRM No.M-16449 of 2013

¶26

-3-

¶27

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. At the same time, it is made clear that if the petitioners were found to be indulged in such illegal activities in future, their bail, bail bonds and surety bonds would automatically be deemed to have been cancelled in this regard.

¶28

September 02, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) naresh.k JUDGE

¶29

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.03 13:57 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Satbhushan and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satbhushan and Anr. 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

Amandeep Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Rama Kishan Vs State of Haryana

Jaspal Saroya Vs State of Punjab

Aman Gupta Vs State of Haryana