Allowed

Suresh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Sept 2020CRM-M/689/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court allowed regular bail for a petitioner indicted under Section 22 NDPS Act, 1985. The court noted custody for over a year and commercial quantity but discharged without merits analysis, citing trial delays due to the pandemic.

What did the court decide?

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

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

¶1

CRM-M No. 689 of 2020

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

CRM-M No. 689 of 2020 Date of Decision: 18.9.2020

Suresh Kumar

......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

¶11

Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, 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. 99 dated 26.8.2019 under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Rampura, District Bathinda.

¶17

Custody certificate by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda has been filed through e-mail. Copy of the same is taken on record.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recovery of 960 tablets of Clovidol-100 SR was allegedly effected from the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has been in custody from the last more than one year and there is no other case against him.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the allegations against the petitioner are that on seeing the police party, he GURPREET SINGH 2020.09.18 17:46I attest to the accuracy andthrew the bag on the side of the road, which was later on recovered and the integrity of this document Chadigarh

¶20

CRM-M No. 689 of 2020

¶21

-2-

¶22

contraband was found in the said bag.

¶23

Learned State counsel has not disputed the fact that there is no other case against the petitioner. However, he submits that the recovery effected from the petitioner falls under the commercial quantity.

¶24

As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has been in custody from the last more than one year. 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE

¶27

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

¶28

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

Suresh Kumar v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar 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

Mamta and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Paramjit Singh @ Pamma Vs State of Punjab

Dishant Goel Vs U.T. of Chandigarh

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Daulat Singh @ Dauli Vs State of Punjab

Sukhmander Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others