Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Amol Rattan Singh, J.
Damanjeet Singh @ Happy - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No. 40115 of 2019
Decided On : 28-05-2020
Bail - NDPS Act - The court granted regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. despite the alleged recovery of contraband slightly above the commercial quantity, considering the petitioner's prolonged custody, absence of other cases under the NDPS Act, and the likelihood of a long trial due to the ongoing pandemic.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, for the alleged possession of contraband. The petitioner had been in custody for almost 11 months with no other NDPS Act case against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court, without commenting on the merits of the case, granted bail to the petitioner due to the prolonged custody, absence of other NDPS Act cases, and the likelihood of a long trial due to the ongoing pandemic.
Issues: Grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case involving the alleged possession of contraband slightly above the commercial quantity under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the prolonged custody, absence of other NDPS Act cases, and the likelihood of a long trial due to the ongoing pandemic as grounds for granting bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
JUDGMENT
Amol Rattan Singh, J. - All cases listed today have been taken up for hearing by way of video conferencing because of the situation existing due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. This petition has been filed under the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C., for grant of 'regular bail' to the petitioner, in case FIR No. 68 dated 03.07.2019, registered at Police Station City Morinda, District Rupnagar, for the alleged commission of an offence punishable under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody for almost 11 months now, he having been arrested on 03.07.2019, with no other case under the provisions of the NDPS Act ever having been registered against him.
4. He further submits that the quantity of contraband alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner (as per the case of the prosecution), is 22 mililitres of Buprenorphine, with commercial quantity being above 20 milligrams, and thus the alleged recovery is only marginally above the commercial quantity (if at all the allegations against the petitioner are to be believed).
5. Learned State counsel does not deny the aforesaid factual position but submits that the quantity being commercial in nature, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.
6. He however also could not deny that no prosecution witness has been examined so far.
7. Keeping in view the above and the fact that the trial is likely to take long as yet, especially because of the ongoing pandemic, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, for or against the petitioner, the petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be admitted to bail upon his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
