Petition for regular bail in an NDPS case involving recovery of narcotic tablets from a bag. Court held Section 50 did not apply to bag search and noted petitioner's prior record, dismissing the bail petition.
Application for grant of regular bail rejected and dismissed.
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-4827-2021 (O&M) Date of Decision:- 14.10.2021
Roshan Lal
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. P.K.S. Phoolka, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab, assisted by SI Karamjit Singh.
(proceedings conducted through video conferencing) *****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J
KAMAL KUMAR 2021.10.14 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 CRM-M-4827-2021 (O&M)
associate some private witness but no one was available. A black coloured plastic bag was seen lying in between the said two persons which was open and intoxicant tablets were visible. Upon checking the said bag, 500 tablets of ‘Alprazolam’ and 1000 tablets of ‘Clovidol’ (Tramadol) were recovered from the said black coloured plastic bag.
KAMAL KUMAR 2021.10.14 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 CRM-M-4827-2021 (O&M)
contraband i.e. 500 tablets containing ‘Alprazolam’ and 1000 tablets containing ‘Clovidol’ (Tramadol). As far as the contention of the petitioner regarding non-compliance of Section 50 of the Act is concerned, it is now well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2005) 4 SCC 350 - State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Pawan Kumar that search of a bag cannot be said to be personal search and would not require compliance of Section 50 of the Act. The petitioner has a chequered history, having been involved in a large number of cases including 5 cases under the Act. The quantity recovered, being ‘commercial quantity’, fetters imposed by Section 37 of the Act would not come into play. Keeping in view the facts of the case and antecedents of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is innocent or that in case released on bail, he will not indulge in similar offences again.
| 14.10.2021 | (Gurvinder Singh Gill) | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| kamal | Judge | ||
| Whether speaking /reasoned | Yes | / No | |
| Whether Reportable | Yes | / No |
KAMAL KUMAR 2021.10.14 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act was violated during the search of a bag found between co-accused persons.
Whether bail can be granted in a commercial quantity case involving a petitioner with a chequered history of offences under the Act.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Pawan KumarExplained¶24
(2005) 4 SCC 350 - State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Pawan Kumar · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Roshan Lal
State of Punjab
Gurvinder Singh Gill
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
