SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1226

SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Dilshad Khan @ Chhotu – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Surender Singh, AAG, Haryana.

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 a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top