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 5, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hardum vs State Of Haryana on 24 August, 2020

Author: Ramendra Jain

Bench: Ramendra Jain

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M-23706-2020 (O&M)
                                             Date of Decision : 24.08.2020

Hardum                                                         ...... Petitioner
                               Versus


State of Haryana                                          ...... Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

                        ***

Present :   Mr. Amit Choudhary, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Sumit Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

                        ***

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (Oral)

Case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to the outbreak of Pandemic COVID-19.

Custody certificate of the petitioner has been filed. Same is taken on record. Be tagged at appropriate place.

Through this second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising from FIR No.500 dated 14.09.2018, registered under Sections 22 (c)/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act and 201 IPC, at Police Station Ratia, District Fatehabad.

Petitioner is facing trial in the aforesaid FIR on the allegations that on 14.09.2018, he was apprehended with conscious possession of 1950 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride, without any permit or licence.



                                    1 of 2
                 ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 03:24:57 :::
 CRM-M-23706-2020 (O&M)                        -2-

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that he was granted interim bail on 25.03.2019 due to non-receipt of FSL report. On receipt of the same, petitioner surrendered on 09.09.2019. Meaning thereby, he remained in jail for more than 16- 17 months. Conclusion of trial may take a sufficient long time. No useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner any more in jail.

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

Considering overall circumstances and the custody period of petitioner for around 16-17 months, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. Consequently, petitioner Hardum is ordered to be released on bail during pendency of trial, if not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.



                                               (RAMENDRA JAIN)
24.08.2020                                           JUDGE
mamta

             Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes/No
             Whether Reportable                            Yes/No




                                     2 of 2
                  ::: Downloaded on - 04-09-2020 03:24:58 :::