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 3, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Robin Singh vs State Of Punjab on 27 November, 2019

Author: Rajbir Sehrawat

Bench: Rajbir Sehrawat

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH
212
                                      *****
                                                      CRM-M No. 7383 of 2019
                                                    Date of decision : 27.11.2019

Robin Singh                                                       ......Petitioner
                                        Vs.
State of Punjab                                                  ......Respondent


Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJBIR SEHRAWAT

Present :    Mr. G.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner

             Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG, Punjab
             ---

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail pending trial in case FIR No. 4 dated 4.1.2018, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act), at Police Station City Tarn Taran.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the case against the petitioner is totally concocted. But even as per the case of the prosecution, recovery from the petitioner is of 800 intoxicated tablets, containing substance diphenoxylate hydrochloride. However, as per the FSL report, the actual quantity of diphenoxylate hydrochloride found in the entire recovery is 2.31 mg/per tablet, which is less than the commercial quantities prescribed for the respective substances under the NDPS Act. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in CRM-M- 35080 of 2018 - Rajvir Singh @ Raju v. State of Punjab, decided on 21.08.2018, to support his contention. It is further contended that there is no other case against the petitioner.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 12-01-2020 17:13:04 ::: CRM-M No. 7383 of 2019 -2- On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, being instructed by the police official, submits that a heavy recovery of prohibited substance was effected from the petitioner. However, the result of the FSL report has not been disputed by the State counsel. It is also not disputed that there is no other case against the petitioner.

In view the above, but without expressing any further opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.




                                                      (RAJBIR SEHRAWAT)
                                                            JUDGE
27.11.2019
Ashwani



             Speaking/Reasoned          :      Yes/No
             Reportable                 :      Yes/No




                                      2 of 2
                   ::: Downloaded on - 12-01-2020 17:13:04 :::