IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Avneesh Jhingan, J.
Sukhdeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 17910 of 2021
Decided On : 09-08-2021
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Bail - Poppy Husk - Summary: The court granted bail to the petitioner who was apprehended in a case involving the possession of Poppy Husk, considering the petitioner's claim of innocence, lack of criminal antecedents, and the completion of investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail in a case involving the possession of 80 kgs of Poppy Husk. The petitioner claimed to have only taken a lift in the apprehended vehicle and had no criminal antecedents.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted bail to the petitioner, considering the petitioner's claim of innocence, lack of criminal antecedents, and the completion of investigation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail in a case involving the possession of a commercial quantity of Poppy Husk.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the petitioner's claim of innocence, lack of criminal antecedents, and the completion of investigation as grounds for granting bail.
Final Decision: Bail was granted to the petitioner on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
JUDGMENT
Avneesh Jhingan, J. - The matter is taken up for hearing through video conference due to COVID-19 situation.
2. This is a petition seeking regular bail in case of FIR No.0170 dated 25.11.2020, under Section 15 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Bahavwala, District Fazilka.
3. Police received a secret information that Jaswant Singh, Sukhdeep Singh and Rajwinder Singh are in habit of bringing Poppy husk from Rajasthan and sell the same in Punjab. Acting on information, vehicle bearing registration No. RJ-07-GB-0677 was checked and recovery of 80 kgs of Poppy Husk was made.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had only taken a lift in the said vehicle. He had no criminal antecedents. He is in custody since 25.11.2020. No recovery is to be made.
5. Learned State counsel opposes the grant of bail and submits that the recovery is of commercial quantity. She on instructions submits that the investigation is complete and challan stands presented.
6. The case set up by the petitioner is that he had taken lift in the apprehended vehicle. He is not involved in any other FIR. He is a young boy of 20 years. No recovery is to be made. Investigation is complete. Conclusion of trial is likely to take time. Bail is granted to the petitioner on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.
7. The petition is allowed.
8. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.