Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sudesh Singh @ Tandu vs State Of Punjab on 18 October, 2011
CRM-M No.28444 of 2011(O&M) ::1::
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.28444 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.10.2011
Sudesh Singh @ Tandu
...... Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
...... Respondent
***
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Gill, D.A.G., Punjab.
***
AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.26 dated 20.03.2011 registered under Sections 22, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act at P.S. Boha, District Mansa.
At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the last order inadvertently it has been wrongly recorded that the petitioner is in custody for the last six months but actually the petitioner is in custody for the last four months and prays that the same may be read as four months. Allowed as prayed for.
CRM-M No.28444 of 2011(O&M) ::2::
On 19.09.2011 the following contention was noticed:-
"Learned counsel has argued that as per the allegations of the FIR, NDPS Act has been wrongly invoked. However, without prejudice to this argument it is argued that the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act having admittedly not been followed, the petitioner, who has now been in custody for six months for an alleged recovery of 50 bottles of Racscoff and 300 pactets of Diatil tablets), would be entitled to bail."
In support thereof learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the matter of Sarija Banu @ Janarthani @ Janani and another v. State through Inspector of Police reported in (2004) 12 Supreme Court Cases 266 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the violation of mandatory provisions is a relevant consideration even at the time of bail. He has also relied upon the judgment in the matter of Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in 2005(1) P.L.R. 425 wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that Section 50 is a mandatory provision.
Learned Deputy Advocate General has accepted the fact that as per the FIR the mandatory provision of Section 50 has not been complied with. He is also not in a position to cite any contrary judgment. To the averment that there is no other case pending against the petitioner, learned Deputy Advocate General on instructions from ASI Didar Singh has stated that there is no other case pending against him.
CRM-M No.28444 of 2011(O&M) ::3::
In the circumstances, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on regular bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
Ordered accordingly.
Petition stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI ) October 18, 2011 JUDGE ashish