Allowed

Daulat Singh @ Dauli v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Sept 2020CRM-M/2004/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought regular bail under NDPS Act after recovery of tramadol tablets. Court observed recovery was commercial quantity but allowed bail noting custody exceeded one year, no witnesses examined, and trial delays due to pandemic.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court or Duty Magistrate.

Daulat Singh @ Dauli Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

CRM-M No. 2004 of 2020

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

CRM-M No. 2004 of 2020 Date of Decision: 18.9.2020

Daulat Singh @ Dauli

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

¶11

Present: Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate for Mr. Hoshiar Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. N.K.Banka, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

¶16

The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 117 dated 27.8.2019 under Sections 21 and 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Jalalabad, District Fazilka.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recovery of 450 tablets Tramadol Hydrochloride has been allegedly effected from the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.8.2019 and there is no other case against him.

¶18

On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the recovery effected from the petitioner falls under the commercial quantity. He further submits that no prosecution witness has been examined till date.

¶19

In the present case, though the recovery effected from the

¶20

GURPREET SINGH 2020.09.18 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh

¶21

-2-

¶22

CRM-M No. 2004 of 2020

¶23

petitioner falls under the commercial quantity but he has been in custody from the last more than one year and there is no other case against him. Moreover, no prosecution witness has been examined till date. The trial will take time to conclude because of COVID-19 pandemic. No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

¶24

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

¶25

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE

¶26

September 18, 2020 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶27

GURPREET SINGH 2020.09.18 17:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chadigarh

Daulat Singh @ Dauli v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daulat Singh @ Dauli 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mamta and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Paramjit Singh @ Pamma Vs State of Punjab

Dishant Goel Vs U.T. of Chandigarh

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sukhmander Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others