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

2014 Supreme(P&H) 602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Chauhan
CRM-M-32470 of 2014
Gurdip Singh & Ors.
v.
State of Punjab
{Decided on 14/10/2014}

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Mr. DS Pheruman, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Mehardeep Singh, DAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Charanjit Singh.

Headnote:Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ss.15 & 22--Bail--Conscious Possession--Recovery of 60 kgs of poppy husk--Whether Recovery was made from three persons or one person is yet to be determined--Weight of bags has also been included in total weight--Conscious possession by petitioners is debatable--Bail granted--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.439.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.:- The petitioners seek regular bail in case FIR No.240 dated 25.10.2013, registered under Sections 15 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short, ‘the NDPS Act’) at P.S. Sadar Tarn Taran.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners were travelling along with co-accused Rajwinder Singh and Dharminder, in a three-wheeler. The alleged intoxicating powder was recovered from Rajwinder Singh, the owner of the three-wheeler, who had tied the contraband on his waist. The petitioners have nothing to do with the co-accused/owner of the three-wheeler. The recovery of 60 kgs of poppy husk has been attributed to the three accused. The learned counsel states that at the most, 20 kgs can be attributed to him. Even the weight of the bags has been included in the weight towards the contraband. The petitioners are in custody since 25.10.2013. They are not involved in any other FIR.

3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, on instructions, submits that 60 kgs of poppy husk was recovered from the possession of the accused, which is a commercial quantity. However, a admits that the petitioners are not involved in any other FIR. Heard.

4. In the instant case, the conscious possession of the contraband by the petitioners is debatable. It is also debatable whether the quantity allegedly recovered from the accused falls under the category of commercial quantity, as the weight of the gunny bags has also been statedly included. The petitioners are in custody since 25.10.2013. They are not involved in any other FIR.

5. In the circumstances, without adverting to the merits of the instant case, this petition is allowed. The petitioners be admitted to bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

------------------


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top