Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Ritu Bahri, J.
Labh Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 35336 of 2020
Decided On : 05-11-2020
NDPS Act - Bail - The court granted regular bail to the petitioner based on the disclosure statement made by a co-accused and the absence of any pending cases under the NDPS Act against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case under the NDPS Act where their name came up in a disclosure statement made by a co-accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the nature of the recovery, the petitioner's period of incarceration, and the absence of pending cases under the NDPS Act, and granted regular bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to regular bail based on being named in a disclosure statement and the absence of pending cases under the NDPS Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the precedent that a person named in a disclosure statement and not arrested at the spot is entitled to anticipatory bail, and applied this principle to grant regular bail to the petitioner.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail.
JUDGMENT
Ritu Bahri, J. - This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.196 dated 14.08.2020, under Sections 22- C/27-A of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station, City Ratia, District Fatehabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that name of the petitioner came pursuant to a disclosure statement made by Prem Singh that petitioner was the supplier of tablets to the accused.
3. Learned State counsel informs that recovery in this case is 'commercial' in nature. She is not disputing that the name of petitioner was disclosed by a person, from whom, recovery of contraband was effected. On a specific query, she states that no other case under the NDPS Act is pending against the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision given in Rajwinder Vs. State of Haryana,2019 1 LawHerald 848 on the proposition that if, a person is named on the disclosure statement of the co-accused and has not been arrested from the spot, then he is entitled to get the concession of anticipatory bail.
5. In the present case, petitioner is in custody since 24.08.2020. Heard.
6. Keeping in view the period of incarceration of the petitioner and the fact that the trial will take some time for its conclusion, this Court feels that no purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner any longer.
7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Fatehabad.
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
