Allowed

Rahish Ahmad v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Mar 2021CRM-M/4814/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge allowed regular bail to the petitioner accused under NDPS Act, noting nomination based on a co-accused's statement. The bench observed that keeping the petitioner in custody serves no useful purpose while trial concludes, without expressing an opinion on merits. He directed release on bond to the trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/surety bond to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Rahish Ahmad Vs State of Haryana — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CRM-M No.4814 of 2021 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M No.4814 of 2021 (O&M) Date of Decision.23.03.2021 (Heard through VC)

Rahish Ahmad

...Petitioner

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶11

Present: Mr. Tanvir S. Grewal, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, AAG, Haryana.

¶13

-.-

¶14

JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)

¶15

This is a petition that has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.140 dated 30.10.2019 under Sections 20, 27A & 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 216 IPC registered at Police Station Jhansa, District Kurukhsetra.

¶16

Counsel for the petitioner herein would contend that the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of a disclosure statement of one Taiyab Khan, who has already been allowed regular bail by this Court in CRM-M No.2014 of 2020 vide order dated 10.08.2020. He would also rely upon the judgment of Coordinate Bench passed in CRM-M No.45029 of 2018 titled as Roshan Kumar and another Vs. State of Haryana on 31.02.2019 wherein it has been held that being in possession of ganja leaves would not construe any offence under the NDPS Act.

¶17

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State opposes grant of bail to the petitioner by contending that the judgment as relied upon by the petitioner would not be applicable to the facts of the present case,

¶18

PANKAJ KUMAR 2021.03.24 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

-2-

¶20

CRM-M No.4814 of 2021 (O&M)

¶21

since the report received from forensic science laboratory Haryana, Madhuban, Karnal shows that ganja leaves were fruiting and therefore, would fall under the NDPS Act, however, she does not dispute the fact that petitioner was nominated as an accused on the basis of statement given by a co-accused, who is already on bail.

¶22

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has been nominated in the FIR on the basis of a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, who has already been granted concession of regular bail by this High Court and the trial is likely to take some time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind bars. The instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on execution of adequate personal/ surety bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, any observation made herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case.

¶23

	(J	AISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE
March 23, 2021
Pankaj*
	Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶24

PANKAJ KUMAR 2021.03.24 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Rahish Ahmad v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahish Ahmad 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmej Ram Vs State of Punjab and Others

Ajay Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Arshdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Arshdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Arshdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Rohit Vs State of Haryana