Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail for possession of poppy husk under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The High Court rejected the plea, finding no ground due to unsatisfactory circumstances, lack of evidence regarding his shop, and unidentified business dimensions.
The application for pre-arrest bail is dismissed.
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- 215 of 2013
----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 215 of 2013 Date of decision. 08.01.2013
Karan alias Lovely
....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Haryana
........ Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. Surender Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Crl. Misc. No. 346 of 2013
Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No.M-215 of 2013
Karan alias Lovely, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 271 dated 19.12.2012 at Police Station Bhuna, District Fatehabad, for an offence punishable under section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985(for short 'the Act').
Crl. Misc. No. M- 215 of 2013
----2--
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is running a small recharge shop. According to him, the Station House Officer knew the petitioner and if he escaped in front of the police party in front of the hotel after leaving the bag containing 5 kilograms 800 grams of poppy husk, raid should have been conducted at his house. According to him, no raids have been conducted in this case.
There is nothing on the record to suggest that no raid has been conducted by the police at the premises of the petitioner after his escape from the spot. The petitioner being familiar with the SHO would lead to no conclusion that the case against the petitioner is false. The petitioner has not placed on record any document to show that he is running a recharge shop and not the hotel in front of which he was seen by the police. There is nothing strange in the fact that in front of the police party, the petitioner escaped and went into hiding in a field growing wheat crop.
All the circumstances noticed above show that the petitioner was identified at the spot and he was having in his hand a bag containing poppy husk and his custodial interrogation is to be conducted for finding out not only the source of the poppy husk but also the other dimensions of his business of the same. Hence, I do
Crl. Misc. No. M- 215 of 2013
----3--
not find any ground to release the petitioner on anticipatory bail. The
petition is consequently dismissed.
January 08, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to anticipatory bail for the offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act.
Whether the petitioner is vague about his residence and correct version of the case facts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Karan alias Lovely
The State of Haryana
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
