Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.34 seconds)
Parminder Kaler @ Bobi vs State Of Punjab on 11 October, 2021 cites

Sukhwinder Singh @ Vicky vs State Of Punjab on 10 November, 2020

3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 12-10-2021 22:20:41 ::: CRM-M No.32727 of 2020 (O&M) 4 [5]. Learned State counsel, however, opposed the bail on the strength of some contrary view expressed by some Courts. [6]. The judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in Sukhwinder Singh @ Vicky's case (supra) can be relied in this context, which has been delivered after considering the import of all such judgments.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 34 - J S Puri - Full Document

Narinder Pal @ Veeru vs State Of Punjab on 14 July, 2014

[4]. Learned counsel further submitted that as per custody certificate produced by learned State counsel, petitioner is not involved in any other case. Petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2019. Long custody of the petitioner itself is a ground to grant him regular bail de hors the nature of quantity allegedly recovered. Learned counsel referred to CRM-M No.20566 of 2019 titled Veeru Vs. State of Punjab decided on 19.11.2019, CRM-M No.41779 of 2020 titled Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 17.12.2020, CRM-M No.17481 of 2020 titled Mani Singh @ Maddi Vs. State of Punjab decided on 22.07.2020 and CRM-M No.25382 of 2020 titled Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 02.09.2020 in the aforesaid context.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - M S Sullar - Full Document

Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 November, 2005

[4]. Learned counsel further submitted that as per custody certificate produced by learned State counsel, petitioner is not involved in any other case. Petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2019. Long custody of the petitioner itself is a ground to grant him regular bail de hors the nature of quantity allegedly recovered. Learned counsel referred to CRM-M No.20566 of 2019 titled Veeru Vs. State of Punjab decided on 19.11.2019, CRM-M No.41779 of 2020 titled Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 17.12.2020, CRM-M No.17481 of 2020 titled Mani Singh @ Maddi Vs. State of Punjab decided on 22.07.2020 and CRM-M No.25382 of 2020 titled Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 02.09.2020 in the aforesaid context.
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 198 - B N Agrawal - Full Document

Mani Singh @ Maddi vs State Of Punjab on 22 July, 2020

[4]. Learned counsel further submitted that as per custody certificate produced by learned State counsel, petitioner is not involved in any other case. Petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2019. Long custody of the petitioner itself is a ground to grant him regular bail de hors the nature of quantity allegedly recovered. Learned counsel referred to CRM-M No.20566 of 2019 titled Veeru Vs. State of Punjab decided on 19.11.2019, CRM-M No.41779 of 2020 titled Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 17.12.2020, CRM-M No.17481 of 2020 titled Mani Singh @ Maddi Vs. State of Punjab decided on 22.07.2020 and CRM-M No.25382 of 2020 titled Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 02.09.2020 in the aforesaid context.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 17 - D Sibal - Full Document

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980

[4]. Learned counsel further submitted that as per custody certificate produced by learned State counsel, petitioner is not involved in any other case. Petitioner is in custody since 10.12.2019. Long custody of the petitioner itself is a ground to grant him regular bail de hors the nature of quantity allegedly recovered. Learned counsel referred to CRM-M No.20566 of 2019 titled Veeru Vs. State of Punjab decided on 19.11.2019, CRM-M No.41779 of 2020 titled Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 17.12.2020, CRM-M No.17481 of 2020 titled Mani Singh @ Maddi Vs. State of Punjab decided on 22.07.2020 and CRM-M No.25382 of 2020 titled Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 02.09.2020 in the aforesaid context.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 8067 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Saleem @ Mohammd Salim vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 6 May, 2015

It is also being used to treat opiate addiction, such as addiction to heroin. It has legitimate uses as an analgesic and for de-addiction. That is how, interpretation attached to Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules of 1985 came 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 12-10-2021 22:20:41 ::: CRM-M No.32727 of 2020 (O&M) 3 into being, wherein it has been observed that a person can possess 100 doses of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride without any medical prescription and can retain such like psychotropic substance. Learned counsel referred to CRM-M No.5207 of 2014 titled Saleem Mohd. Vs. State of Punjab decided on 04.11.2015 by the Division Bench and CRM-M No.13312 of 2020 titled Sukhwinder Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab decided on 10.11.2020 to contend that even in case of 70 injections of Buprenorphine Rexogesic 02 ml each, bail was granted by this Court after considering the interpretation attached to Rule 66 of 1985 Rules and other precedents on the point.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 43 - H P Verma - Full Document
1   2 Next