Allowed

Varun Sharda @ Veenu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Sept 2021CRM-M/13588/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court accepted a petition for anticipatory bail in an NDPS case. Since the petitioner was never arrested, joined investigation voluntarily, and is not required for custodial interrogation, the interim order making the petitioner available is made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Petition accepted; interim directions made absolute; petitioner to join investigation as called and abide by S. 438(2) Cr.P.C. conditions.

Varun Sharda @ Veenu Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh

¶2

CRM-M-13588-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:-27.9.2021

¶3

Varun Sharda @ Veenu … Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

¶8

Present:Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Harpreet S. Multani, AAG, Punjab, assisted by Sub Inspector Amarjit Singh.

¶10

(proceedings conducted through video conferencing)

¶11

¶12

GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .(Oral)

¶13

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.48 dated 3.3.2021 at Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act.

¶14

At the time of issuance of notice of motion on 24.3.2021, the following order was passed:

¶15

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR. It is submitted that the petitioner is neither owner of the truck carrying the alleged contraband nor apprehended on the spot. It is argued that there is no allegation in the FIR that he was driving the truck

¶16

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.09.27 18:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

( 2 ) CRM-M-13588-2021 (O&M)

¶18

and had run away on seeing the raiding party. It is also submitted that 40 kilogram poppy husk is alleged to have been recovered from the truck, which is non-commercial quantity and as such no custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required.

¶19

Notice of motion.

¶20

Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab, who is present through the medium of video conferencing, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent—State and opposes the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the petitioner was named in the secret information received regarding carrying of contraband. She seeks time to file reply.

¶21

Adjourned to 27.9.2021.

¶22

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation within a period of one week and on his doing so, in the event of arrest the petitioner be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall continue to join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.”

¶23

Learned State counsel, upon instructions from Sub Inspector Amarjit Singh, has informed that pursuant to interim directions issued by this Court, the petitioner has since joined investigation and is not required for any custodial interrogation.

¶24

In view of the aforestated position, wherein the petitioner was never arrested at the spot and is stated to have joined investigation and is not even required for any custodial interrogation, the petition is accepted and the interim directions issued by this Court vide order dated 24.3.2021 are hereby made absolute, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer

¶25

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.09.27 18:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

( 3 ) CRM-M-13588-2021 (O&M)

¶27

and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.

¶28

27.9.2021 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No

¶29

PANKAJ KAKKAR 2021.09.27 18:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Varun Sharda @ Veenu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Varun Sharda @ Veenu 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

Amit Puri @ Puri Vs State of Punjab

Ravi Singh Vs State of Haryana

Sandeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Rohit Vs State of Haryana and Others

Simranjeet Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Jagtar Singh Vs State of Punjab