The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a bail application filed by Deep Singh in a commercial quantity narcotics case. The Court declined to extend bail despite cited precedents, citing the menacing drug situation in Punjab and the weapons recovered.
Regular bail under Section 439 CrPC was not granted; the petition was 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.M-30213 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 17, 2014
Deep Singh
...Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.G.S.Kaura, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Reeta Kohli, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab and Mr.Vaibhav Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
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, 473 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Banur, District Patiala.
Notice of motion was issued in this case and learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.
As per prosecution version, the present petitioner is stated to have been involved in this FIR case in conspiracy to commit
VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-30213 of 2014
-2-
offence under Sections 468 and 471 IPC as well as Section 29 of the NDPS Act for possessing psychotropic substance recovered from Jagdish Singh @ Bholla, Sarabjit Singh @ Sabha etc. The recovery in the FIR is of commercial quantity. From the present petitioner, two pistols and 47 cartridges have also been recovered. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, (Special Judge under NDPS Act) Mohali also held that the petitioner is involved in the offence under Sections 22 and 25A of the NDPS Act pertaining to large quantity of Methamphetamine, Pseudoephedrine powder etc. and he also stated to have committed offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act.
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. 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
VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CRM No.M-30213 of 2014
-3-
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.
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.
Therefore, finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed.
December 17, 2014 Vgulati
(INDERJIT SINGH) JUDGE
VINEET GULATI 2014.12.24 17:31 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 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving commercial quantity of narcotic drugs and weapons.
Whether citations to other Supreme Court judgments warrant a change in the prevailing strict bail regime for commercial narcotics cases in Punjab.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajesh Kumar GuptaReferred¶21
State of Uttaranchal vs. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, 2006(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 974
Union of India and Pradeep Shivram Dhond and anotherReferred¶21
Union of India and Pradeep Shivram Dhond and another, SLP (Crl.) No.4976 of 2006
Jagdish Singh vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶21
Jagdish Singh vs. Union of India and another, SLP (Crl.) No.4135 of 2010
Jagdish Singh vs. Union of India and anotherReferred¶21
Jagdish Singh vs. Union of India and another, Criminal Appeal no.1845 of 2010
Pradeep Dhond vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control BureauReferred¶21
Pradeep Dhond vs. Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Criminal Application No.6787 of 2005
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Deep Singh
State of Punjab
INDERJIT SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
