Dismissed

Tasbir Singh @ Tasveer @ Bhalwan v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC7 Mar 2019CRM-M/6524/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS case involving commercial quantity heroin. The court held that the bar of bail under Section 37 NDPS Act applies due to the commercial quantity recovered and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Petition for regular bail dismissed; no bail granted due to commercial quantity of drugs recovered attracting the total bar under Section 37 NDPS Act.

Tasbir Singh @ Tasveer @ Bhalwan Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2019)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No.M-6524 of 2019

¶3

Date of decision:07.03.2019

¶4

Tasbir Singh alias Tasveer Singh alias Bhalwan

...Petitioner

State of Punjab

...Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶10

.....

¶11

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

¶12

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶13

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶14

The petitioner has filed this third petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.13 dated 10.06.2017 registered for the offences under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as `the NDPS Act') and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station State Special Operation Cell, District Amritsar.

¶15

Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab.

¶16

Mr. Dhruv Dayal, learned Senior Deputy Advocate General,

¶17

Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-State and contested

¶18

this petition.

¶19

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.03.08 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

Cr. Misc. No.M-6524 of 2019

¶21

[2]

¶22

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

¶23

The FIR was registered against the present petitioner and coaccused on the basis of a secret information that they are coming on the bridge near Village Naushehra Dhalla to supply heroin in huge quantity to some party. As per the prosecution version, the police party found two persons standing on the motorcycle and one Hindu man was sitting on the front seat of motorcycle and was carrying black bag and one Sikh man was sitting on the pillion seat and they on seeing the police party immediately became active and tried to escape by starting the motorcycle, but they were apprehended. As per prosecution version 6 Kgs. of Heroin was recovered in this case, which falls in commercial quantity.

¶24

As the recovery falls in commercial quantity, therefore, bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will apply in this case and the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail.

¶25

Therefore, in view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed.

¶26

March 07, 2019. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp NOTE: Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No

¶27

HARPAL SINGH PARMAR 2019.03.08 15:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Tasbir Singh @ Tasveer @ Bhalwan v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tasbir Singh @ Tasveer @ Bhalwan 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

Robin Gill @ Sabhi and Another Vs State of Punjab

Sulochana Malik Vs State of Punjab and Another

Lokesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baldev @ Ballu Vs State of Haryana

Gurtej Singh @ Lali Vs State of Punjab

Mohinder Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.