Allowed

Shailender v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC8 May 2020CRM-M/52914/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner in an NDPS case. The court noted the petitioner was detained for over seven months, charges were yet to be framed, the trial would be lengthy, and no useful purpose would be served by continued custody.

What did the court decide?

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

Shailender Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

CRM-M-52914 of 2019

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-52914 of 2019 Date of decision:08.05.2020

Shailender

... Petitioner

Vs.

State of Haryana

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL

¶11

Present:Mr. K.V.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Anmol Malik, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)

¶14

The Court has been convened through video conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.

¶15

The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.219 dated 05.10.2019 under Section 20 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the allegation against the petitioner is that 605 grams Charas was recovered from him which he was allegedly carrying in a red colour bag. He submits that the alleged recovery is non-commercial. He further submits that he is in custody since 05.10.2019 and the trial is likely to take sometime to conclude.

¶17

SAVITA KADIAN 2020.05.08 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

¶18

CRM-M-52914 of 2019 {2}

¶19

On the other hand, learned State counsel is present through video conferencing and could not deny the fact that the contraband seized from the petitioner was non-commercial in quantity. He has submitted that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed on 28.11.2019 and the charges are yet to be framed. He has also conceded that no other case is pending against the petitioner.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

The petitioner is in custody more than seven months. More particularly, because the charges are yet to be framed against the petitioner and the trial is likely to take sometime to conclude, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further.

¶22

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

¶23

	(SUVIR SEHGAL) JUDGE
May 08, 2020 savita/komal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned	Yes/No
Whether Reportable	Yes/No

¶24

SAVITA KADIAN 2020.05.08 16:39 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh

Shailender v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shailender v. State of Haryana

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

Harmanpreet Singh @ Harman and Another Vs the State of Haryana

Pradeep Singh @ Bunty Vs State of Punjab

Neha and Another Vs State of Haryana and Others

Parshotam Lal Goyal Vs State of Haryana

Reena Rani Vs State of Punjab

Amandeep Singh and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others