Disposed¶17

Amritpal Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2025CRM-M/3606/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Amritpal Singh v. State of Punjab; CRM-M-3606-2025; decided 05.05.2025; Anoop Chitkara J.; FIR No. 82 dated 19.11.2023; PS Verka, District Amritsar; Sections 21(c) and 29 NDPS Act; regular bail under Section 483 BNSS; custody certificate 04.05.2025; petition withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition; State allowed to file same reply; power of attorney to suffice; miscellaneous applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition; State permitted to file its existing reply in the fresh petition instead of a new one; Registry not to insist on a fresh power of attorney since the power of attorney filed in this petition shall suffice; all pending miscellaneous applications disposed of. ¶17

Amritpal Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

¶1

CRM-M-3606-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

240 CRM-M-3606-2025 Date of Decision: 05.05.2025

¶5

Amritpal Singh ...Pe��oner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab …Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶9

Present: Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the pe��oner.

¶10

Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G, Punjab.

¶11

****

¶12

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶13

FIR No.	Dated	Police Sta�on	Sec�ons
82	19.11.2023	Verka, District	21(c), 29 of NDPS Act
		Amritsar

¶14

The pe��oner incarcerated in the FIR cap�oned above, has come up before this Court under Sec�on 483 BNSS seeking regular bail.

¶15

Custody cer�ficate dated 04.05.2025 filed by State counsel today in the Court is taken on record. Copy has been supplied to counsel for the pe��oner today in the Court.

¶16

A�er arguing for some �me, counsel for the pe��oner wants to withdraw the present pe��on with liberty to file a fresh pe��on.

¶17

Given above, the present pe��on is disposed of having been withdrawn with liberty aforesaid. It is clarified that in case, State does not want to file fresh reply in the fresh pe��on and want to file the same reply as filed in the present pe��on, they shall be permi�ed to do so. Since pe��oner has already given power of a�orney to his counsel in this pe��on, as such, Registry shall not insist to file power of a�orney in case fresh pe��on is filed and power of a�orney filed in this pe��on shall suffice. All pending miscellaneous applica�ons, if any, stand disposed of.

(ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

05.05.2025

Jyo�-II