Allowed

Suraj Mohamad v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Oct 2013CRM-M/23454/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. arising from an NDPS Act case involving possession of a psychotropic substance not in the Schedule, the Court allowed the petition. The decision deferred a ruling on the charges to the trial court and directed release on furnishing bail bonds.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted regular bail and released upon furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

Suraj Mohamad Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

[ 1 ]

¶2

Crl. Misc. No. M-23454 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-23454 of 2013 Date of Decision: Oct. 10,2013

¶5

Suraj Mohamad ................................... Petitoner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab .......................... Respondent

¶8

Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri

¶9

1.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

Present: Mr. Lakhwinder Singh Mann, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Gurbir Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)

¶14

This petiton under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in F.I.R. No. 134 dated 28.11.2012 under Sections 22,61,85 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the possession of 255 grams of psychotropic powder which has been detected as Diphenoxlate salt as per the report of the Chemical Examiner will fall under Section 21 of the NDPS Act

¶16

Kaur Rupinder 2013.10.19 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-23454 of 2013 [ 2 ]

¶18

as it does not find mention in the Schedule which relates to Psychotropic Substance.

¶19

Charges have been framed under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. Offence is not covered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. This aspect will be looked into by the trial Court during the trial.

¶20

The petitioner has been in custody since 30.11.2012 and after framing of charges, out of seven prosecution witness, six witnesses are still to be examined.

¶21

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib.

¶22

( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE

¶23

10.10.2013 rupi

¶24

Kaur Rupinder 2013.10.19 12:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Suraj Mohamad v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suraj Mohamad 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

Dilbagh Masih Vs State of Punjab

Dial Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S M.B. Exports Ltd. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Megha & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jaswant Alias Jassa Vs State of Haryana

Wattanbir Singh @ Vattanbir Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.