Allowed

Akanksha Mamgain @ Akanksha Sharma v. Union of India

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2019CRM-M/4260/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hearing a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NCB case where the petitioner was accompanied by a main accused upon whose car heroin was recovered, the Court discharged the petitioner, allowing the bail motion without expressing opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail during pendency of trial on furnishing of bail and surety bonds.

Akanksha Mamgain @ Akanksha Sharma Vs Union of India — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M-4260 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-4260 of 2019

¶5

Date of Decision: 06.05.2019

¶6

Akanksha Mamgain @ Akanksha Sharma

...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India

....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶12

Present:Mr. R.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶13

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶14

Reply on behalf of respondent, filed in Court today, is taken on

¶15

record.

¶16

Through instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case NCB Crime No.45/2018/ dated 02.12.2018 under Sections 8/21/25/29/60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Narcotic Control Bureau, Chandigarh.

¶17

According to the prosecution, in the morning of 02.12.2018, on the basis of secret information, Innova car bearing registration No. CH-04K-3895 driven by Inderjit Singh, accompanying the petitioner was intercepted. On search, 415 grams of heroin was recovered from the boot of the said car. Thereafter, on the basis of disclosure statement, rented accommodation of the co-accused was also raided from where a packet of 5 RAVINDER SINGH 2019.05.07 09:27I attest to the accuracy andgrams of heroin was further recovered. integrity of this document

¶18

-2-

¶19

CRM-M-4260 of 2019

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner has falsely been implicated simply because she was accompanying main co-accused Inderjit Singh. Petitioner, in her disclosure statement, never confessed that she was also part and parcel of above illicit trade with main co-accused Inderjit Singh. It was co-accused Inderjit Singh, who was indulged in nefarious activities without knowledge of the petitioner. Petitioner is in custody since last more than five months. No recovery has to be effected from her. Conclusion of trial may take a sufficient long time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any more in jail.

¶21

On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

¶22

Considering overall facts and circumstances, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. Consequently, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of trial, on her furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶23

(RAMENDRA JAIN) May 06, 2019 JUDGE R.S.

¶24

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

¶25

RAVINDER SINGH 2019.05.07 09:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Akanksha Mamgain @ Akanksha Sharma v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akanksha Mamgain @ Akanksha Sharma v. Union of India

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

Jatinder Chaudhary Vs Kanhiya Lal

Amanpreet Singh @ Mampy Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Sapna and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Surinder Kumar Vs Anil Kumar and Other

Dinesh @ Bittu Vs State of Haryana

Raghbir Singh Vs State of Punjab