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 4, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Daljit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2013

Author: Daya Chaudhary

Bench: Daya Chaudhary

            Criminal Misc. No. M-19911 of 2013                                     1


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                                          CHANDIGARH

                                               Criminal Misc. No. M-19911 of 2013
                                               Date of decision: 24.09.2013.

            Daljit Singh                                                 ..Petitioner


                                              Versus

            State of Punjab                                              ..Respondent

            CORAM:             HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

            Present:           Mr. Gagneshwar Walia, Advocate for
                               Mr. B.S. Seemar, Advocate
                               for the petitioner.

                               Mr. Rupam Aggarwal, DAG, Punjab
                               for the respondent - State.

            Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner-Daljit Singh for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.51 dated 09.04.2012, under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar (Rural).

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present case is that whether the salts i.e., Altopine sulphate and Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride, which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition falls under NDPS Act or not and the controversy is pending before Division Bench of this Court, which has not been decided so far. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per allegations in the FIR, 3000 tablets of Microlit, 4000 capsules of Dexovon and 5000 capsules of Parvon Spas were Rani Neetu 2013.09.28 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-19911 of 2013 2 recovered. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2012 and nothing is to be recovered from him and no purpose would be served by keeping him behind the bars. No other case under NDPS Act is pending against him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Parmanand vs. State of Haryana & Ors., Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.9730 of 2012 decided on 22.08.2013.

The order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in abovesaid case is reproduced as under: -

"The petitioner is an accused in a case under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the 'NDPS Act'). His prayer for bail has been rejected by the impugned order of the High Court.
According to the prosecution, a large number of allopathic drugs containing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances have been recovered from the petitioner.
Mr. P.N. Misra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner while pressing for bail submits that no licence is required under the NDPS Act for storage of allopathic drugs containing narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.
Rani Neetu
2013.09.28 12:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M-19911 of 2013 3
Mr. Manjit Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondent- State submits that the State Government has not framed any rule in this regard.
During the pendency of the trial, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
With the aforesaid directions, the special leave petition is disposed of."

Learned State counsel has opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner but has not disputed the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Parmanand's case (supra).

In view of submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that the controversy as involved in the present case is pending before a Division Bench of this Court; and moreover, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has granted bail under the similar circumstances; the petitioner is in custody since 11.04.2012; and no other case under NDPS Act is pending against him, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner (Daljit Singh) is directed to be released on interim bail subject to furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court till the decision of controversy by the Division Bench.



            24.09.2013                                             (DAYA CHAUDHARY)
            neetu                                                        JUDGE
Rani Neetu
2013.09.28 12:54
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh