Allowed

Sonu v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC31 Jan 2014CRM-M/35503/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a regular bail petition for a petitioner charged under Section 20 NDPS Act. The court noted the contraband was of non-commercial quantity and the prosecution had not led evidence, ordering release on bail subject to furnishing bonds. No prior cases cited.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail pending trial, subject to furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Magistrate, Panipat.

Sonu Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No. M-35503 of 2013

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No. M-35503 of 2013 Date of Decision: 31^st January, 2014

Sonu

.. Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

.. Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Sandeep Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Nitin Kaushal, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶15

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to petitioner Sonu who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 20 the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in a case arising out of FIR No.794, dated 15.07.2013, registered at Police Station, City, Panipat.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that noncommercial quantity of 200 grams of charas was allegedly recovered from the petitioner on 15.07.2013 and since then, he is behind the bars. He further contends that he is neither required nor involved in any other case. He also contends that in spite of such a long incarceration of the petitioner, the prosecution has not been able to lead its evidence.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Ramesh Chand, Police Station, City, Panipat, very fairly concedes that the alleged contraband recovered from the petitioner is of non

¶18

Sharma Seema 2014.01.31 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Criminal Misc.No. M-35503 of 2013 {2} commercial quantity and he is behind the bars from 15.07.2013. He further concedes that the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case.

¶20

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.

¶21

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner- Sonu son of Pritam, r/o Jangra Market, Kutani Road, Panipat, is ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial of the present case subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Panipat.

¶22

January 31, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge

¶23

Sharma Seema 2014.01.31 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

Criminal Misc.No. M-35503 of 2013

¶25

{3}

¶26

Sharma Seema 2014.01.31 17:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Sonu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Geeta Bedi and Anr. Vs Mamta Rani and Anr.

Tej Ram & Ors. Vs Daya Ram

Ganga Jal Vs State of Haryana

Seema Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Balvir Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Malkiat Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab