Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sandeep Moudgil, J.
Dilshad Khan @ Chhotu - Petitioner - Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana - Respondent - Respondent
CRM-M-59718 of 2022
Decided On : 04-01-2023
Bail - NDPS Act - Regular Bail Granted
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act. The petitioner was implicated based on the disclosure statement of the main accused, and no recovery was made from the petitioner's possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the custody certificate, which indicated that the petitioner had been in custody for over 2 months and 3 days and was not involved in any other similar case. The court noted that no recovery was made from the petitioner's possession and that the conclusion of the trial would take sufficient time. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail in a case under the NDPS Act, considering the lack of recovery from the petitioner's possession and the petitioner's custody for over 2 months.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of recovery from the petitioner's possession, the petitioner's custody for an extended period, and the absence of involvement in any other similar case.
Final Decision: The petitioner was granted regular bail, subject to furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned magistrate.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 215, dated 21.10.2022, under Section 15 of NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Panjokhra, District Ambala (Haryana).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been roped in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement of the main accused namely Rohit, from whom 75 kgs of poppy husk was recovered.
3. Custody certificate of the petitioner filed by learned State counsel is taken on record. A perusal of the said certificate shows that the petitioner is behind the bars for the last 2 months and 3 days and is not involved in any other case of similar nature.
4. Learned State counsel could not controvert the fact that no recovery was effected from the possession of the petitioner and was roped on the basis of disclosure statement of Rohit when he was taken into custody and thereafter, offence under Section 29 of NDPS Act was also added.
5. Keeping in view the facts that the conclusion of trial will take sufficient time; no recovery was effected from the possession and the petitioner is not involved in any other case, the petitioner is ordered to released on regular bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
6. Disposed off.
Petition allowed.
AI
The decision emphasizes the importance of considering the circumstances of the case, including the lack of recovery and the petitioner's custody, in determining whether to grant regular bail under th....
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
