Allowed

Bira Ram v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC28 Sept 2017CRM-M/16214/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court granted regular bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case. The court noted the search was conducted pursuant to a consent memo lacking the petitioner's signature but held that the trial court must determine the legality of the search authority. Bail was allowed subject to specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned Magistrate, subject to conditions.

Bira Ram Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

CRM-M-16214-2017

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl. Misc. No.M-16214 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: September 28, 2017.

¶5

Bira Ram

¶6

..........PETITIONER(s).

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

State of Punjab

¶9

........RESPONDENT(s).

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Vikram Bali, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

¶12

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, A.A.G. Punjab.

¶13

¶14

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

CRM-27984-2017

¶16

This is application for placing on record copy of consent memo Annexure P-2 and order dated 25.07.2017 Annexure P-3.

¶17

The same are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Application stands disposed of.

¶18

CRM-M-16214-2017

¶19

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.267 dated 04.07.2015 registered for the offence punishable under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short-NDPS Act), at Police Station Phagwara City, District Kapurthala.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

Sachin Mehta 2017.09.29 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

¶22

CRM-M-16214-2017

¶23

-2-

¶24

As per prosecution case, recovery of 350 grams of contraband i.e. Diphenoxylate was effected from the petitioner. The Investigating Officer before conducting the search, has given option to the petitioner to get his search conducted from some Magistrate or Gazetted Officer and has prepared consent memo, wherein petitioner is stated to have given consent that he has no objection if his search is being conducted by ASI Surinder Singh, who was heading the police party. This consent memo is not bearing the signature of petitioner.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this shows that the memo was either not prepared at the spot or the version of the prosecution is not correct.

¶26

Learned State counsel on perusal of the police file, admits that consent memo prepared in this case is not bearing signature of petitioner. However, he has submitted that it was a chance recovery and provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act are not attracted in this case.

¶27

The question at this stage is not to decide as to whether the provisions of Section 50 NDPS Act are attracted or not. The factual position is that ASI Surinder Singh had given option to the petitioner and prepared a consent memo, which does not bear the signature of the petitioner. The search was conducted pursuant to this consent memo, whereby ASI Surinder Singh was authorised to conduct search of the petitioner. As this memo is not bearing signature of petitioner, it will be a matter to be seen by the trial Court as to whether ASI Surinder Singh was competent to conduct search of the petitioner and if he conducted the search, the authority given to him as per this consent memo was legal and

¶28

Sachin Mehta 2017.09.29 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-16214-2017

-3-

valid.

Without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner Bira Ram is ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bond and surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, subject to following

¶33

terms:-

¶34

a. The petitioner shall comply with the conditions mentioned in Section 437(3) Cr.P.C.

¶35

b. In the event of his absence on any date of hearing, the benefit of bail allowed to the petitioner shall stand withdrawn. The trial Court shall be competent to cancel his bail bond and surety bond and proceed to procure his presence in accordance with law. In that eventuality the petitioner shall have to apply for bail afresh.

¶36

c. He shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court.

¶37

September 28, 2017 Sachin M.

¶38

( SURINDER GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶39

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶40

Yes/No

¶41

Sachin Mehta 2017.09.29 14:37 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

Bira Ram v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bira Ram 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

Tarsem Singh Vs State of Punjab

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kanta Rani and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Robin Kumar @ Toni Vs State of Punjab

Harpreet Singh @ Happy Vs State of Punjab

Jarnail Singh @ Cherry Vs State of Punjab