Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bhupinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 July, 2018

Author: Ramendra Jain

Bench: Ramendra Jain

CRM-M-17516 of 2018                                                    -1-



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                            CRM-M-17516 of 2018
                            Date of Decision:-13.07.2018

Bhupinder Singh

                                                       ...Petitioner

                            Versus

State of Punjab

                                                       ...Respondent


CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

Present:-     Mr. Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG Punjab.

RAMENDRA JAIN J.(Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail on behalf of petitioner in case FIR No.62 dated 2.7.2017, under Sections 21/22 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Nandgarh, District Bathinda.

According to the prosecution, 400 tablets of Carisoma and 31 vials of Wincerex 100 ml each were recovered from the accused as well as his accomplice Sunil.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and is behind bars since 02.7.2017. The conclusion of trial will take a long time. No useful 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2018 00:38:58 ::: CRM-M-17516 of 2018 -2- purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner in jail. Relying upon the judgments passed in CRM-M-42099-2013 titled 'Pardeep Singh vs. State of Punjab, and CRM-M-779-2014 titled 'Lovepreet Singh vs. State of Punjab, decided on 26.5.2014 as well as CRM-M-5067-2018 titled 'Mukesh @ Sonu vs. State of Haryana', decided on 09.3.2018 passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, he prays for regular bail of the petitioner.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.

Treating the case of the petitioner on same parity as that of the judgments referred above passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court, but without commenting on merits, petitioner is admitted to bail, on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

July 13, 2018                              ( RAMENDRA JAIN )
Vijay Asija                                     JUDGE



Whether speaking/reasoned                       Yes / No

Whether Reportable                              Yes / No




                                 2 of 2
              ::: Downloaded on - 23-07-2018 00:38:59 :::