Allowed

Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC29 Apr 2015CRM-M/11127/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bail application under Section 439 CrPC concerned the charge of narcotics possession. The court held that heroin recovered from the petitioner's personal search (200 grams) was not a commercial quantity separate from his co-accused. Investigation concluded, so regular bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail on furnishing requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar.

Amandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM-M-11127-2015 Date of decision: 29.04.2015

¶3

AMANDEEP SINGH

¶4

......Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

STATE OF PUNJAB

¶7

......Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DARSHAN SINGH

¶9

¶10

Present: Mr. Divyjot S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

Mr. Neeraj Yadav, AAG, Punjab.

¶12

DARSHAN SINGH, J.

¶13

This petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter called as 'the Code') for grant of regular bail.

¶14

As per the prosecution allegations, on 7.1.2015, the present petitioner along with his co-accused Baldev Singh was apprehended while coming on the motorocycle. As a result of personal search of the petitioner, 200 grams heroin was recovered. 90 grams heroin was recovered from the personal search of his coaccused Baldev Singh, as a result of which, this case has been registered bearing FIR No. 6 dated 7.1.2015 under Section 21 /61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar.

¶15

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2015.05.01 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶16

CRM-M-11127-2015 -2-

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that only 200 grams heroin has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner which is a non-commercial quantity. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than three and a half months. Challan has already been presented. So, the petitioner deserves the concession of bail. He contended that the quantity recovered as a result of the personal search from the present petitioner and his co-accused cannot be clubbed. To support his contentions, he has relied upon cases Vikas Kumar versus State of Punjab, Crl. Misc. No.M13685 of 2013 decided by this Court on 29.5.2013, Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot versus State of Gujarat 2005, AIR (SC)4248, Gurdeep Singh @ Babbi versus State of Punjab, Crl.Misc.No.M12045 of 2015 decided by this Court on 24.4.2015 and Jafar Iqbal versus State of Punjab, SLP (Crl)No.6412 of 2011, decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court on 4.11.2011.

¶18

On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that both the accused were coming jointly on the same vehicle. The joint recovery of heroin from both the accused falls within the definition of commercial quantity and Section 37 shall be applicable.

¶19

I have duly considered the aforesaid contentions.

¶20

It is a clear case of the prosecution that the recovery has been effected from the personal search of both the accused. It is settled principle of law that at the stage of deciding the bail application, the Court is not required to give the meticulous findings PUSHPINDER SAINIon the disputed questions of law and facts. 2015.05.01 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶21

CRM-M-11127-2015 -3-

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the aforesaid cases in order to contend that the recovery effected from the personal search of both the accused have to be taken separately.

¶23

Learned State counsel has not been able to cite any authority to the contrary. In this manner, the recovery of 200 grams of heroin effected from the personal search of the present petitioner is certainly a non-commercial quantity and provisions of Section 37 of the Act are not applicable. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than three and a half months. The investigation is already complete. Further detention of the petitioner will not serve any purpose as the conclusion of the trial will certainly take time.

¶24

So, the present petition is hereby allowed. PetitionerAmandeep Singh is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of requisite bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar.

¶25

April 29, 2015 ps

¶26

(DARSHAN SINGH) JUDGE

¶27

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2015.05.01 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶28

CRM-M-11127-2015

¶29

AMANDEEP SINGH Versus STATE OF PUNJAB

¶30

¶31

At this stage, it has been brought to my notice that due to typographical mistake, CJM, Kaputhala has been mentioned instead of CJM, Jalandhar in the bail order of even date passed in this case which requires correction. Necessary correction mentioning Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar instead of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala is hereby made in the original order itself.

¶32

April 29, 2015 (DARSHAN SINGH) ps JUDGE

¶33

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2015.05.01 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶34

PUSHPINDER SAINI 2015.05.01 10:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Amandeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amandeep 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reshma @ Reshma Devi and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Others

Vicky @ Vikram Vs State of Haryana

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rahul @ Monu Vs State of Haryana

Sarjinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Peter Masih Vs State of Punjab & Others