Allowed

Judge Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Aug 2014CRM-M/9115/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail petition allowed for petitioner booked under NDPS Act. Court noted petitioner had served ten months, opium was non-commercial quantity, and no prosecution witness examined.', released on bail subject to furnishing bonds.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Fazilka.

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

¶1

Criminal Misc. No.M-9115 of 2014

¶2

[ 1 ]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No.M-9115 of 2014 Date of Decision: August 22, 2014

Judge Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

The State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Shailesh Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J.

¶14

Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C., for grant of bail to the petitioner, Judge Singh, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in a case arising out of FIR No.117, dated 19.10.2013, registered at Police Station, Sadar, Abohar.

¶15

Learned counsel contends that it is the second petition seeking the same relief; the earlier one was withdrawn on 07.02.2014; the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for approximately ten months; he is neither required nor involved in any other case at present; the recovery of 2 Kg of opium, alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner, would attract the provision of non-commercial quantity; and that the mother of the petitioner is seriously ill since she was operated upon for removal of her uterus.

¶16

SEEMA RANI 2014.08.22 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

Criminal Misc. No.M-9115 of 2014

¶18

[ 2 ]

¶19

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Vislesh Kumar, Police Station, Sadar, Abohar, very fairly concedes that the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case at present and the opium recovered from the petitioner was of non-commercial quantity. It has also been conceded by the learned counsel for the State that not even a single witness of the prosecution has been examined so far.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

In view of the fact that the opium recovered from the petitioner was of non commercial quantity and he has already suffered incarceration for ten months, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner-Judge Singh, s/o Malook Singh, r/o Kacha Seed Farm, Abohar, 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, Fazilka.

¶22

August 22, 2014 (Naresh Kumar Sanghi) seema Judge

¶23

SEEMA RANI 2014.08.22 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Judge Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Judge Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Paramjit Kaur and Ors. Vs Sukhpal Singh and Another

Baseshar Vs Gram Panchayat

Dharam Singh Vs Bed Kaur and Others

Mansa Ram Vs Vipin Pal @ Bittu and Others

Sukhbir Singh @ Raja Vs State of Punjab

New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs Paramjit Kaur and Ors.