Allowed

Manjit Kaur @ Shakuntala v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2018CRM-M/19908/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner, an accused in a Section 15 NDPS Act case involving 52 kgs of poppy husk, noting non-conscious possession and official witness testimony.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Manjit Kaur @ Shakuntala Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-19908 of 2018 Date of decision: 06.09.2018

Manjit Kaur

..Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

Present: Mr. Gursimran Singh Madaan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Amit Mehta, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶11

¶12

Daya Chaudhary, J.

¶13

The present petition has been filed by petitioner-Manjit Kaur under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.30 dated 11.03.2018 registered under Section 15/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 IPC at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar during pendency of the trial.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery of contraband was not effected from the possession of the petitioner but from the bag, which was lying near the place where the petitioner was sitting. It cannot be said to be a case of conscious possession. Learned counsel further submits that the alleged recovery is marginally more than the noncommercial quantity. The petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2018. All the witnesses are official witnesses and there is no possibility that the petitioner may influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. Learned counsel also submits that there is non-compliance of provisions of Section 50 of the

¶15

NDPS Act as the samples were drawn and form M-29 was prepared with the

¶16

NEETU RANI 2018.09.10 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-19908 of 2018 2

¶18

seal of ASI, which was handed over to companion Police officer ASI Balwinder Singh. Learned counsel also submits that total 52 kgs of poppy husk was recovered and upto 50 kgs poppy husk is non-commercial. No purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is a lady and by considering the custody and role attributed to her, she is entitled to regular bail.

¶19

Learned State counsel has not disputed the custody period as well as alleged recovery of 52 kgs of poppy husk.

¶20

Heard arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have also perused the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file.

¶21

Admittedly, the alleged recovery is 52 kgs of poppy husk, which is marginally more than the non-commercial quantity and the same was not effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner. The petitioner is in custody since 11.03.2018 and no other case of NDPS Act is pending against her. All the witnesses are official witnesses and there is no possibility that the petitioner may influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence. The trial may take long time to conclude and no purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.

¶22

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Manjit Kaur) is directed to be released on regular bail subject to her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶23

06.09.2018	(DAYA	CHAUDHARY)
neetu		JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes
Whether Reportable	Yes

¶24

NEETU RANI 2018.09.10 10:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Manjit Kaur @ Shakuntala v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjit Kaur @ Shakuntala 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

Anuj Vs State of Haryana

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Haryana

Shamsher Vs State of Haryana

Jagat Pal @ Jagat Singh Vs State of Haryana

Azam Khan @ Shallu Vs State of Punjab

Palo Vs State of Punjab