Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.18 seconds)Sukhchain Singh @ Jagga vs State Of Punjab on 28 January, 2015
Similarly, in
Sukhchain Singh's case, accused had purchased the recovered tablets
from his co-accused-Darshan Singh, who had been released on bail,
therefore, the concession of bail was also extended to him also.
Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits
of the case, no case is made out for releasing the petitioners on regular
bail.
Section 21 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Satish Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 8 October, 2002
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, considering
above background, particularly the stand of Mr. Jindal that at the time
of recovery no invoices or any evidence of purchase of the said tablets
was with the petitioner or were ever referred to during investigation by
him. Concededly, the recovery of the contraband was effected far away
from District Hisar, where he is running a chemist shop, therefore, this
Court is not inclined to extend the concession of regular bail to the
petitioners. Further, the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel
may not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case as in
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 21-05-2022 08:02:27 :::
CRM-M-2020-2021 -4-
Satish Kumar's case, the bail was granted to the said accused after
examining the deposition of the Investigating Officer particularly his
cross-examination as well as the custody of the accused.
Section 29 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [Entire Act]
1