Allowed

Rupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Aug 2018CRM-M/20492/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a corrigendum regarding the respondent state in the case description. Subsequently, the court granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case, subject to specific conditions including availability for interrogation and no inducement to witnesses.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 15.05.2018 was made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to standard terms for anticipatory bail.

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

¶1

CRM-M-20492 of 2018

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-20492 of 2018 Date of Decision: 27.08.2018

¶5

Rupinder Kaur ....Petitioner

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State of Punjab ....Respondent

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

¶9

Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Mr. Ramandeep Sandhu, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶11

¶12

SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶13

The present petition has been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.36 dated 13.03.2018 registered for the offence punishable under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Ghagga, District Patiala. (Offence punishable under Section 29 NDPS Act was added later on).

¶14

Heard.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the headnote “State of Haryana” in place of “State of Punjab” has been wrongly mentioned. The case was registered at Police Station Ghagga, District Patiala, as such, “State of Punjab” be read as respondent.

¶16

Request is allowed and Registry is directed to do the needful. Learned State counsel submits that he has already received notice in this petition and investigating officer is present. He on instructions from HC Paramjit Singh submits that the petitioner has joined the JITENDER KUMAR 2018.08.27 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CRM-M-20492 of 2018

¶18

-2-

¶19

investigation and her custodial interrogation is no more required for the purpose of further investigation of the case.

¶20

In view of submission of learned State counsel but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and order dated 15.05.2018 is made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:-

¶21

(i) that the petitioner shall make herself available for interrogation by the police as and when required;

¶22

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against her so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

¶23

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.

¶24

(iv) that the petitioner will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court.

¶25

August 27, 2018 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No

¶26

JITENDER KUMAR 2018.08.27 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

Rupinder Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupinder 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

Jaswinder Singh @ Ricky Vs State of Punjab

Harjit Singh @ Jitu Vs State of Punjab

Joginder Dass Vs State of Punjab

Jai Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Ravinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Hans Raj Vs State of Haryana