Dismissed

Maninder Singh @ Bittu Aulakh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Dec 2014CRM-M/10857/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a regular bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. involving recovery of pseudoephedrine and dextropropoxyphene under the NDPS Act and IPC. The court held that despite some Supreme Court precedents, the circumstances and heavy recovery did not warrant bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to the petitioner regular bail denied. Petition dismissed.

Maninder Singh @ Bittu Aulakh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM No.M-10857 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 17, 2014

¶3

Maninder Singh alias Bittu Aulakh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr.Jagjit Singh Lalli, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms.Reeta Kohli, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶11

¶12

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶13

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.56 dated 15.05.2013 under Sections 21, 22, 25, 25A, 27 and 29 of NDPS Act and Sections 379, 411, 468, 471, 473 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Banur, District Patiala.

¶14

Notice of motion was issued in this case and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶16

As per prosecution version, in this case recovery of 2 kgs. of Pseudoephedrine powder has been effected from the petitioner,

¶17

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

CRM No.M-10857 of 2014

¶19

-2-

¶20

which is a chance recovery. 1 kg. of Pseudoephedrine powder has been recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of the petitioner. 500 grams of Dextropropoxyphene powder has also been recovered on the basis of disclosure statement. Pseudoephedrine powder admittedly is a controlled substance and the recovered Dextropropoxyphene powder falls under non commercial quantity as the commercial quantity as given in the Schedule of NDPS Act is more than 500 grams. But, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and in view of the heavy recovery from the present petitioner, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of regular bail. The petitioner is running a Hotel in Amritsar and is stated to be go-between Jagdish Bholla and Jagjit Chahal and other accused persons from Canada. The present petitioner has been nominated in this case on the statement of independent witness Tajinder Kumar and also nominated by Jagdish Bholla. Though, Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply to the recovery in the present case, but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any ground to grant regular bail. The challan has already been presented against the petitioner and charges have already been framed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner cited judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 974 , SLP (Crl.) No.4976 of 2006 titled as Union of India and Pradeep Shivram Dhond and another , SLP (Crl.) No.4135 of 2010 titled as Jagdish Singh vs.

¶22

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CRM No.M-10857 of 2014

¶24

-3-

¶25

Union of India and another , Criminal Appeal no.1845 of 2010 titled as Jagdish Singh vs. Union of India and another and judgment passed by Judicature at Bombay, Appellate Jurisdiction in Criminal Application No.6787 of 2005 titled as Pradeep Dhond vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau . I have gone through all the above-cited judgments and the same will not apply in the present case as no law has been laid down that bail should be granted in the case of commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also cited judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and other High Courts, in which other accused have been released on bail in other cases. I have gone through all the cited judgments but no law has been laid down that in case of recovery of narcotic drugs or psychotropic substance or controlled substance, bail should be granted. In each and every case, bail is to be granted keeping in view the facts of that case.

¶26

Keeping in view the prevalent situation in Punjab and menace of drugs and in view of the recovery in the present case, I do not find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of grant of regular bail.

¶27

Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.

¶28

December 17, 2014 Vgulati

¶29

(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE

¶30

VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Maninder Singh @ Bittu Aulakh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maninder Singh @ Bittu Aulakh 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

Surinder Sharma Vs Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh

Sukhdeep Kumar @ Mahant Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karamjit Sngh @ Pamma Vs State of Punjab

Dev Raj @ Dev Behl Vs State of Punjab

Rajesh Kumar Vs U.T. Chandigarh & Anr.

Swaranjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.