Dismissed

Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 Sept 2013CRM-M/29483/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous application, the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. filed by Gurdeep Singh in a case involving the trafficking of 1 Kg of heroin under the NDPS Act, noting that granting bail would hinder the investigation.

What did the court decide?

Petition for anticipatory bail dismissed; no bail granted.

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

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-29483 of 2013

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M-29483 of 2013 Date of decision :- 05.09.2013

Gurdeep Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

¶11

Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Sama, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

¶13

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

¶14

Petitioner-Gurdeep Singh son of Kala Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No.37 dated 16.05.2013, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 21 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the NDPS Act'), by the police of Police Station Lakho Ke Behram, District Ferozepur, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶15

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.

¶16

The prosecution claimed that on 16.05.2013 Balwinder Singh co-accused of the petitioner, was apprehended by the police party headed by

¶17

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Crl. Misc. No. M-29483 of 2013 -2-

¶19

Kikar Singh and 1 Kg of Heroin was recovered from his possession. During the course of interrogation, it revealed that the commercial commodity of pointed Heroin was brought by petitioner Gurdeep Singh and his other coaccused Balwinder Singh and Sandeep Kumar from the relations of Sandeep Kumar.

¶20

Meantime thereby, very serious allegations are assigned that petitioner and his other co-accused brought 1 Kg Heroin. It cannot possibly be denied that the tendency and frequency of free flow of Heroin by such accused, adversely affecting the basic structure and health of society, have been tremendously increasing day-by-day, which needs to be curbed with heavy hand.

¶21

Taking into consideration, the seriousness of the allegations of commission of heinous offence by the petitioner, to me, he is not at all entitled to anticipatory bail. If the petitioner is allowed the benefit of anticipatory bail, then, the police would be deprived from ascertaining the source of Heroin, length & magnitude of the such scams, case property and effective investigation. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which to my mind is not legally permissible.

¶22

Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed in a routine manner and to circumvent normal procedure of arrest, recovery of case property from the accused and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. At the Kumar Naresh2013.09.12 16:02same time, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

-3-

¶24

Crl. Misc. No. M-29483 of 2013

¶25

faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

¶26

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

¶27

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 filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶28

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 anticipatory bail.

¶29

September 05, 2013 ( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) naresh.k Judge

¶30

Kumar Naresh 2013.09.12 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdeep Singh 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

The Pb. State Co-Op. Supply Vs Krishan Lal

The Pb. State Co-Op. Supply Vs Krishan Lal

Narinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Baldev Singh @ Tita Vs State of Punjab

Jit Singh Vs State of Pb.

Raj Kaur @ Rani Vs State of Punjab