Allowed

Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2013CRM-M/25715/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C regarding NDPS charges where the accused was in custody since FIR registration, the Court allowed the petition. Relying on the long period served and the pendency of trial, the Court held there was no need for further detention. Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be enlarged on regular bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Bathinda.

Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-25715 of 2013 (O&M) -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-25715 of 2013 (O&M) Date of decision : 11.09.2013

¶4

Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi

....Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶10

Present: Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. Gurveer Sidhu, AAG, Punjab

¶12

¶13

RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)

¶14

This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R No. 45 dated 11.05.2012 u/s 21/22 od NDPTS Act, registered at Police Station Rampura Distt. Bathinda.

¶15

As per allegations in the F.I.R, 15 vials of rexcof, 1750 tablets of carimol and 400 grams of intoxicating powder was allegedly recovered from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on chemical examination of the aforesaid powder, Nitrazepam was found in the said powder, which falls under the category of non-commercial quantity. Carisoprodol/Carimol does not fall within the ambit of NDPS Act and Rexcof contains codin phosphate which is also a manufactured drug.

¶16

Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-25715 of 2013 (O&M) -2-

¶18

Copy of FSL is Annexure P-2.

¶19

The issue whether the manufacturing drugs will fall under the NDPS Act is pending consideration in this Court vide Crl. Misc. No. M- 13140 of 2012.

¶20

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Chaman Lal

¶21

has informed the Court that after investigation, challan has been presented on 28.09.2012. Charges have been framed on 16.10.2012 and the trial is at the stage of recording the prosecution evidence.

¶22

The petitioner is in custody since 11.05.2012. Thus no useful

¶23

purpose would be served by detaining him during the pendency of trial.

¶24

Heard.

¶25

Keeping in view the period of incarceration of the petitioner

¶26

and the fact that trial may still take some time to conclude, this court feels that there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Bathinda.

¶27

11.09.2013 G.Arora

¶28

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶29

Arora Gaurav 2013.09.28 11:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaswinder Singh @ Jassi 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

Amar Gawri and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Pushpa Devi and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ajaib Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Harish Alias Hinsa Vs State of Haryana

Hazari @ Sardara Vs State of Haryana

Tejinder Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others