Allowed

Anil Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Jan 2016CRM-M/1233/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Disposal of a bail petition under the NDPS Act. The Court observed that 9 bottles of cough syrup allegedly recovered from the petitioner constituted a non-commercial quantity. It rejected the State's insistence on the FSL report for bail purposes and granted release.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Rupnagar.

Anil Kumar Sharma Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

CRM-M-1233 of 2016

¶2

#1#

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-1233 of 2016 Date of Decision: 28.01.2016

Anil Kumar Sharma

…Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH

¶11

Present: Mr. Sajeev Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

JASWANT SINGH, J (Oral)

¶13

Prayer is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.126 dated 28.11.2015 under Sections 22/61/85/15 of NDPS Act (for short “the Act”), P.S Sadar Rupnagar, District Rupnagar.

¶14

As per the allegations, the petitioner was apprehended and from his conscious possession, 9 bottles of 'REXCOF'-cough syrup containing 100 ml liquid each were recovered.

¶15

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that if the seized quantity is converted into grams, it would not measure more than 900 grams, and thus falls in the noncommercial quantity not attracting the bar of Section 37 of the Act. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.11.2015 and is not involved in any other case. The report of the FSL is also still awaited.

¶16

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Pawan

¶17

KUMAR MANOJ 2016.01.28 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶18

#2#

¶19

CRM-M-1233 of 2016

¶20

Kumar, submits that without the report of the FSL, it cannot be inferred that the seized quantity is not commercial in nature.

¶21

The argument on behalf of the State is absolutely unreasonable, and, therefore, rejected. On the very face of the allegations, the seized quantity is non-commercial in nature.

¶22

Without commenting upon merits of the case and taking into acount the facts of the present case besides that the trial is not going to be concluded in near future, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner beind the bars any longer.

¶23

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Rupnagar.

¶24

January 28, 2016 manoj

¶25

(JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE

¶26

KUMAR MANOJ 2016.01.28 19:12 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Anil Kumar Sharma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Sharma 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

Jagjit Singh Vs State of Haryana

Pardeep and Ors. Vs State of Haryana

Pardeep Vs State of Haryana

Manjit Singh Cheema Vs State of Punjab

Rajdeep Singh Sandhu Vs Ut of Chandigarh

Aatish Vs State of Haryana