Petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC for offences under NDPS Act and Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Petitioner's counsel requested withdrawal as the case was listed for defence evidence recording. Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
Crl. Misc. No. M-11912 of 2014 Date of Decision: 20.8.2014.
Piare Lal
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. A.D.S.Sukhija, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Deep Singh, AAG, Punjab. ****
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 17 dated 15.2.2013 under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Section 27 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, registered at Police Station Kiratpur Sahib, District Ropar.
Learned State counsel, on instructions from Head Constable Kulwinder Singh, has submitted that the case is now listed before the Trial Court for recording of defence evidence.
In these circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition at this stage.
Dismissed as withdrawn.
(SABINA) JUDGE
August 20, 2014 Gurpreet
GURPREET SINGH 2014.08.20 16:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's petition for regular bail should be allowed or withdrawn.
Whether to grant bail pending recording of defence evidence in the trial court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Piare Lal
State of Punjab
Sabina
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
