SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996(1) CRIMES 183 (H.C.)
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sat Pal, J.
Vijay Kumar - Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Misc. No. 9701-M of 1995
Decided on 31-7 -1995
Counsel for the parties:
For the Petitioner: M.L. Merchea.
For the Respondent: M.K. Garg, AAG.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1913 – Sections 439 and 167 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Section 18 - Bail- Petitioner sought bail pending trial - Recovery of opium from Petitioner - No challan filed against petitioner though period of 90 days elapsed from the date when remand granted - Petitioner has to be re1easedon bail. (Paras 2 and 3)

       Result: Bail granted.

       

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking bail pending trial in case F.I.R. No. 40, dated 21-4-95, Police Station Khuyian Sarwar, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. As per allegations made in the first information report, the petitioner was arrested and as a result of his personal search, 310 grams of opium was recovered from him. Notice of this petition was issued to the Advocate General, Punjab on 1-6-1995. On 27-7-1995, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a period of 90 days has already elapsed from the date remand was granted but the challan has not been filed. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to bring on record the aforesaid facts.

2. Affidavit of Ashok Kumar, who is brother of the petitioner, has been filed and in this affidavit it has been slated that no challan against the petitioner has been filed within 90 days of his arrest. The fact that the challan against the petitioner has not been filed though a period of 90 days has already elapsed from the date when the remand was granted, has not been controverted by the learned AAG, Punjab.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

4. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Thamisharashi and others1. I am of the view that the petitioner has to be released on bail. Accordingly, I direct that the petitioner be admitted to bail on furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000 with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur. With this order the petition stands disposed of.

Bail granted.

1. 1995 (2) Crimes 523. 

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top