Dismissed

Ladhu Singh and Another v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2015CRM-M/11355/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court rejected a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. filed by accused in a NDPS case involving 5 kg poppy husk. The court held that the accused could not benefit from the prosecution penalty for delay caused partly by their own conduct in seeking an extension. Dismissed due to lack of merit and ongoing trial with commercial quantity involved.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail petition dismissed as it lacks merit; no benefit granted for dilatory conduct causing delay.

Ladhu Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

�� 

¶2

��

¶3

Date of decision: 11^th September, 2015

¶4

Ladhu Singh and another

� Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

� Respondent

�� 

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. C.S. Brar, Dy. Advocate General, Punjab.

¶14

�� !��

¶15

Allegations against the petitioners Ladhu Singh and Rani Kaur in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.71 dated 29.06.2014 registered at Police Station Dialpura, District Bathinda under Sections 15/22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short, ‘the Act’) are that on 29.06.2014 they were apprehended while in illegal and unauthorized possession of 5 kg of poppy husk, 26 vials of Rexcof and

¶16

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.09.15 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶17

¶18

��

¶19

250 tablets mark Carisoma, which falls under the commercial category.

¶20

The petitioners’ counsel has sought to seek regular bail on the grounds that the application under Section 36@A of the Act for extension of time was moved on 24.12.2014 after expiry of the period of 180 days and which fact is controverted on behalf of the State by Mr. C.S. Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

¶21

The records reflect that the period of 180 days was to expire on 29.12.2014 and thus, the application under Section 36@A of the Act was moved prior thereto i.e. on 24.12.2014 and thereafter, the accused moved application dated 26.12.2014 for bail which was disposed off on 06.01.2015 and though much reliance has been sought to be placed on **" #$%&� %'($�#')��$+,-�.�� #+��/'0#&�� 1213��2�,%4%'#53�6�1�#')�"�'%�'��')%#�$,�/($��.�� %,#5#��#)#.�7��#0#��#4��#)#.�7��++8#9��#)#.��1263� �� 1�:!�** however having regard to the fact that the prosecution cannot be penalized for the act of the Court which in spite of its obligation has failed to dispose off the application expeditiously when such application ought to be decided without any loss of time. Thus, having regard to the fact that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered and the trial is already underway and rather delay as per the records has occasioned on account of the request of the defence in filing reply to the application for extension of time and therefore,

¶22

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.09.15 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

¶23

¶24

��

¶25

they cannot derive any benefit out of their own conduct. The petitioners cannot be given any benefit of such a default which is also attributable to them.

¶26

Thus, finding no merit, the present petition stands

dismissed.

2�� 3� ��

+8+4&+,��!��*

��

RATTAN PAL SINGH 2015.09.15 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court

Ladhu Singh and Another v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ladhu Singh and Another 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

Case details

Similar cases

Ankur Mittal Vs State of Punjab

Manoj Kumar Kansal Vs State of Haryana

Anoop Vs State of Haryana

Tarseem Goel Vs State of Haryana

Sattu and Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Pardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab