Allowed

Ranbir Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jul 2018CRM-M/20222/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. finding it a fit case to release the petitioner on regular bail, noting her age, absence of other criminal cases, and procedural irregularities regarding the search, despite the commercial quantity of drugs recovered.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted release on bail with a personal/surety bond of Rs. 50,000/-.

Ranbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM No.M-20222 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 17, 2018

Ranbir Kaur

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH

¶9

Present: Mr.Harsh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶11

¶12

INDERJIT SINGH, J.

¶13

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.280 dated 18.12.2017 under Sections 21, 22, 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 411, 414 and 120-B IPC registered at Police Station City, Tarn Taran.

¶14

Notice of motion was issued. Learned State counsel appeared and contested the petition.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have gone through the record.

¶16

From the record, I find that as per the FIR, when police party was going from Jhabal Chowk to Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran, then, DSP Satnam Singh instructed the police party to raid the house of Punjab Singh, Vineet Gulati 2018.07.19 14:18 I attest to the accuracy andas in the bank robbery which occurred on 12.12.2017 in Axis Bank, authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CRM No.M-20222 of 2018

¶18

-2-

¶19

Naurangabad, the looted amount can be recovered from the house of Punjab Singh. As per the allegations, Ranbir Kaur was present in the house. A .32 bore pistol along with magazine and `1.55 lakhs were found there and 300 grams of heroin was recovered from personal search of Ranbir Kaur.

¶20

The perusal of the FIR shows that Ranbir Kaur is an old aged lady of 50 years. She was present in the house. The police party on instructions of DSP Satnam Singh, had gone to raid the house of Punjab Singh for recovering the amount looted from the bank. Punjab Singh is son of the petitioner. He and other family members were not found in the house. Heroin was recovered from the under-shirt of present petitioner. As per prosecution version, Ranbir Kaur asked for search before the Gazetted Officer and police party called same DSP Satnam Singh, who had instructed the police party to raid the house for recovery of looted money and no other Gazetted Officer was called.

¶21

Furthermore, recovery is stated to be effected from under-shirt of present petitioner Ranbir Kaur. Therefore, it cannot be, in any way, in the presence of DSP Satnam Singh. Though, it is stated that search was got conducted through a Lady Constable but at this stage, there is nothing that Lady Constable first gave her personal search to any other lady police official.

¶22

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case where petitioner is entitled to benefit of regular bail. This Court is conscious that recovery in the present case falls under commercial quantity but in view of the above Vineet Gulati 2018.07.19 14:18 I attest to the accuracy anddiscussion, I find it a fit case where petitioner should be released on regular authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

CRM No.M-20222 of 2018

¶24

-3-

¶25

bail. There is no other criminal case against present petitioner, as admitted by learned State counsel.

¶26

Therefore, finding merit in the present petition, the same is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to her furnishing personal/surety bonds in the sum of `50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶27

However, nothing stated above, shall constitute my opinion on

¶28

merits of the case.

¶29

July 17, 2018 (INDERJIT SINGH) Vgulati JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No

¶30

Vineet Gulati 2018.07.19 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Ranbir Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ranbir Kaur 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

Raj Kumar Vs Kahan Singh Pannu and Anr.

Renu Vs Astha Modi

Pardeep Singh Gill and Anr. Vs Suresh Arora

Gian Singh Vs State of Haryana

Jaswinder Kaur @ Rani Vs State of Punjab

Gian Singh Vs State of Haryana