This bail petition challenged the refusal of anticipatory bail for allegations under the NDPS Act involving commercial quantity narcotic recovery. The High Court held that trial was advanced and statutory bar under Section 37 applied.
Petition for grant of bail dismissed.
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.
Criminal Misc.No.M-12281 of 2014
[1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.No.M-12281 of 2014 Date of Decision: October 27, 2014
Kuldeep
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI
Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.K.S.Pannu, DAG, Punjab.
Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Kuldeep, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, (for brevity “NDPS Act”) in a case arising out of FIR No.50, dated 25.03.2013, registered at Police Station, Division No.1, Jalandhar.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last one year and six months; the trial has not concluded; it was a chance recovery; the material documents prepared at the spot contained the FIR number and its date which creates doubt that such documents were
SEEMA RANI 2014.10.28 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
Criminal Misc.No.M-12281 of 2014
prepared at the spot; the petitioner is the only bread winner for his entire family; the father of the petitioner is suffering from serious ailment.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the matter of Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2011(6) Recent Apex Judgments (RAJ) 191 and Ajay Malik & Ors. vs. State of U.T.,Chandigarh, 2009(3) RCR(Criminal) 649 .
On the other hand learned counsel for the State submits that out of 8, six prosecution witnesses have already been examined and that the recovery of 70 grams of intoxicating powder and 1584 capsules of spasmo proxyvon were of commercial quantity, therefore, the bar created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not permit this Court to admit the petitioner on bail.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.
Most of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are to be decided by the learned trial court after scanning the whole evidence to be led. The recovery effected from the petitioner is of commercial quantity and as per Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner cannot be admitted to
SEEMA RANI 2014.10.28 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[3]
Criminal Misc.No.M-12281 of 2014
bail. The judgment in the matter of Sanjay Chandra's case (supra) is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case since there was no minimum sentence prescribed for which the petitioner/accused of the said case was praying for bail. Yet another judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Ajay Malik's case (supra) is also not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case since the said case was decided on merits.
In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of
the case and the advance stage of the trial, no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out.
Dismissed.
October 27, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge
SEEMA RANI 2014.10.28 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act given the commercial quantity of drugs recovered.
Whether the judgments in Sanjay Chandra and Ajay Malik are applicable to the facts of the instant case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sanjay Chandra vs. CBIDistinguished¶26
Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, 2011(6) Recent Apex Judgments (RAJ) 191
Ajay Malik & Ors. vs. State of U.T., ChandigarhDistinguished¶27
Ajay Malik & Ors. vs. State of U.T.,Chandigarh, 2009(3) RCR(Criminal) 649
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kuldeep
State of Punjab
Naresh Kumar Sanghi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
