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 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Paviter Singh @ Baboo vs State Of Punjab on 27 May, 2014

Author: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa

Bench: Tejinder Singh Dhindsa

              CRM-M No. 13321 of 2014(O&M)
                                                      1

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                             AT CHANDIGARH


                                                      CRM-M No. 13321 of 2014(O&M).
                                                      Date of Decision : 27.05.2014.


              Paviter Singh @ Baboo                              ...Petitioner

                                           Versus


              State of Punjab                                    ...Respondent



              CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.


              Present:          Mr. P.P.S. Duggall, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                Mr. K.S. Sidhu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.

                                ***

              Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral)

This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 41 dated 18.06.2013, under Sections 21/29/27-A of NDPS Act and Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sarai Amanat Khan, District Tarn Taran.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

It has gone undisputed that the alleged recovery of 2 kgs. of Heroin has been effected from co-accused Jassa Singh, Gurwinder Singh, Tarsem Singh and Karam Singh. The present petitioner has been sought to be implicated in the present case on the basis that his name figure in the secret information that had been received by the police party. Further case of the Kanchan 2014.05.29 11:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No. 13321 of 2014(O&M) 2 prosecution is that a disclosure statement has been suffered by the petitioner himself after having been taken into custody. It is not even the case made out on behalf of the prosecution that the petitioner had run away from the spot.

Under such circumstances, false implication of the petitioner cannot be ruled out.

Petitioner has been in custody since 05.01.2014. Investigation in the case is complete and even the challan stands presented on 15.01.2014. The trial as such is at the initial stage and would take time to conclude.

This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Disposed of.




              May 27, 2014.                            (TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
              kanchan                                            JUDGE




Kanchan
2014.05.29 11:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh