Allowed

Salim Ansari v. State of Ut, Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jul 2020CRM-M/17357/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed regular bail in a narcotics case. Relying on Sushila Aggarwal and the COVID-19 induced trial delays, the court held that keeping the petitioner in custody served no useful purpose. The order was limited and did not address merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail upon execution of personal/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial court or duty magistrate.

Salim Ansari Vs State of Ut, Chandigarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

PANKAJ KUMAR -1- 2020.07.21 15:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

CRM-M No.17357 of 2020 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.17357 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision.21.07.2020 (Heard through VC)

Salim Ansari

...Petitioner

State of U.T., Chandigarh

¶9

...Respondent

¶10

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶11

Present: Mr. Aruj Khan, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ashumohan Punchhi, P.P., U.T., Chandigarh.

¶13

-.- JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)

¶14

This is a petition that has been filed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.83 dated 21.05.2020 under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Mani Majra, Chandigarh.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that the petitioner has been implicated falsely in the instant FIR. No information was sent by ASI Virender Kumar to the police station prior to completing the investigation and effecting recovery from the petitioner. Even as per the FIR itself, the ruqa was sent after completion of investigation at the spot by the same investigating officer, thus, the complainant and the investigating officer is the same person. Therefore, it will be a debatable issue whether proper procedure under Section 50 of NDPS Act was followed or not. It is further contended that in case there is a reasonable possibility that an accused may be acquitted, he can be granted the concession of bail and in support of aforementioned contention, he relies upon judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.7281-7282 of 2017 titled as

¶16

-2-

¶17

CRM-M No.17357 of 2020 (O&M)

¶18

' Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another' decided on 29.01.2020.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State opposes the regular bail while contending that no ground is made out for granting concession of regular bail.

¶20

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶21

Keeping in view the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushila Aggarwal's case (supra) and coupled with the fact that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude as due to COVID19 situation, Courts are not working at their full strength and not taking up regular hearing matters, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bars. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/ surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, any observation made herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case.

¶22

	(J	AISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE
July 21, 2020
Pankaj*
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	Yes/No

Salim Ansari v. State of Ut, Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salim Ansari v. State of Ut, Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Dalip Singh Vs State of Haryana

Balwinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Neelam Bhati Vs State of Haryana

Balwinder Singh @ Laddi Vs State of Punjab

Pawan Kumar @ Kalu Vs State of Punjab