The petitioner sought anticipatory bail in an NDPS case but was dismissed because no new facts or change of circumstances were established compared to a prior petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-4751-2021 Date of decision: 05.04.2021
Rana Sukhwinder
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab .....Respondent
�����������������������������������������������
����������������������������������� ���
��������������������������������
�������������� !�"�!��������������������������!��������������� �����#������� �������������$��������������%�#�������&����#'����#��������� �������!����������������������
Through this petition, the petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.264 dated 08.12.2020, registered at Police Station Adamur, District Jalandhar Rural, under Sections 15-C and 29 NDPS Act, 1985.
������������������������������������������������(�����)**� +,+)��������� �������$���������"������"�����06.01.2021.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out that
there is any change of circumstance than the ones, mentioned in the earlier petition. Still further, no new facts have been pleaded.
���$������
05.04.2021 �������������������������� ����������$�� ���������� -���������������.��������/� 0��.1� -�������������� #�/� 0��.1�
PARVEEN KUMAR 2021.04.05 04:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail should be granted where no change of circumstances exists compared to an earlier petition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Rana Sukhwinder
State of Punjab
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
