The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a bail petition under Sections 439 and 167(2) CrPC regarding an NDS Act charge. The court held that since the trial was nearing conclusion and prosecution evidence was concluded, no ground for bail interference existed.
The petition for bail is disposed of with no order passed.
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
Crl. Misc. No. M-16021 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 17.11.2015.
Gurjit Singh
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
Present: Mr. G.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.P.S.Sidhu, AAG, Punjab
SABINA, J.
Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 read with Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking regular bail in FIR No. 28 dated 13.5.2014 under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station GRP, Sangrur.
Learned State counsel has submitted that prosecution has concluded its evidence and now the case is listed before the Trial Court for defence evidence of the petitioner.
Since in the present case, trial is near conclusion as the case is listed before the Trial Court for recording of defence evidence of the petitioner, no ground for interference by this Court, at this stage, is made out.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(SABINA) JUDGE
November 17, 2015 Gurpreet GURPREET SINGH 2015.11.18 14:42 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted when the trial is near conclusion and prosecution evidence is concluded.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurjit Singh
State of Punjab
SABINA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
