Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohd.Dilshad vs State Of Union Territory on 18 February, 2013
CRM-M No. 38823 of 2012(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 38823 of 2012(O&M)
Date of Decision: 18.02.2013
Mohd.Dilshad ........Petitioner
versus
State of Union Territory, Chandigarh ..... Respondent
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr. S.K.Chaudhary, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Sarfraj Hussain, Advocate
for UT Chandigarh.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):
This is a petition for regular bail filed in case bearing FIR No. 183 dated 30.04.2012, under Section 15 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sector 39, Chandgiarh.
The argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had undergone imprisonment for 180 days on 29.10.2012 and the fact that thereafter subsequent extension of time for investigation was granted on 02.11.2012 or the fact that challan was filed on 31.12.2012, would not defeat the right of the petitioner to bail. In this connection he has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. CRM-M No. 38823 of 2012(O&M) 2 Thamisharasi and others reported as 1995(4) SCC 190 as well as a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Janta Singh v. State of Punjab, reported as 1996(1) RCR(Criminal) 1 and a judgment of the Single Bench of this Court in Rakesh Kumar and another v. State of Punjab, reported as 2011 (3) RCR(Criminal) 297. Learned Standing Counsel for UT, on instructions from SI Sher Singh, has, however, argued that the facts of this case reveals that the petitioner was a previous convict who had come out on bail and had again indulged in drug trafficking and, therefore, this court should not grant him bail.
This fact cannot be said to be germane at this stage in view of the fact that it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the provisions of Section 167 of the Cr.P.C. would apply in a trial under the NDPS Act.
In the circumstances the petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Criminal Misc. Application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE February 18, 2013 sunita