Sandip Kumar Vs State of Punjab

For having been found in possession of 600 grams of intoxicating powder containing 4.75% of dextropropoxyphine, the petitioner has been in custody w.e.f. May 5, 2012. The recovery of intoxicating powder is marginally higher than the commercial quantity prescribed.

¶18

Be that as it may, the petitioner has been in custody for the last

¶19

about two years whereas only 3 witnesses out of 8 could be examined by the prosecution agency. The period of about two years of detention suffered by

¶20

Gupta Sanjay 2014.04.26 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

CRM M-11263 of 2014

¶22

[2]

¶23

the petitioner seems to be sufficient enough to have a deterrent effect not to commit the similar offence again.

¶24

Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances, this petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/ surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to the condition that before being released, the petitioner will furnish an undertaking that he will not indulge in similar activity during the pendency of the trial. In case of violation of said undertaking, this order will be deemed to have been cancelled.

¶25

April 25, 2014 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

¶26

Gupta Sanjay 2014.04.26 14:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Sandip Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandip Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vicky Kumar Vs State of Punjab

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

Sanjay Goel Vs State of Punjab

Charan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Mohd. Waseem and Another Vs State of Punjab

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab