Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1734
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
NAZAR MOHAMMAD – PETITIONER
Vs.
STATE OF PUNJAB – RESPONDENT
CRM-M-No. 36416 of 2014
Decided On : 10-11-2014
For the Petitioner:Gorakh Nath, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T.N. Sarup, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Regular Bail - Recovery from Truck - Petitioner released on bail
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under Sections 15/25 of NDPS Act. The petitioner claimed to be neither the owner nor the driver of the truck from which the recovery was made, and was unaware of its contents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recovery was made from the truck and the petitioner was working as a conductor. It noted that no other case of NDPS Act was pending against the petitioner, and the remaining accused were in custody with nothing to be recovered from the petitioner. Considering the custody period and lack of useful purpose in keeping the petitioner in custody, the court allowed the petition and directed the petitioner to be released on regular bail.
Issues: Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case under Sections 15/25 of NDPS Act
Ratio Decidendi: The recovery being made from the truck, the petitioner's role as a conductor, lack of pending NDPS cases against the petitioner, and the custody period influenced the court's decision to grant regular bail.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Daya Chaudhary, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 62 dated 03.07.2013, under Sections 15/25 of NDPS Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is neither owner nor driver of the truck from where the recovery was made and he was even unaware as to the contents in the truck. Learned counsel also submits that recovery was not effected from personal possession of the petitioner and the same was effected from the truck and only the driver/owner of the truck are supposed to know as to its contents. Learned counsel further submits that the trial will take some time to conclude and no useful purpose will be served by keeping him in custody. The recovery has already been made and there is no other case of NDPS pending against him and all witnesses are official witnesses.
3. Learned State counsel has not disputed the custody period of more than one year and four months and also the fact that there is no other case of NDPS pending against him.
4. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that recovery was made from the truck and petitioner was working as conductor; no other case of NDPS Act is pending against him; remaining accused are in custody and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
