AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
20 paragraphs · 330 wordsHari Pal Verma, J
The matter has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of COVID-19.
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No.128 dated 25.06.2020 under Section 15 of the
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, the NDPS Act) registered at Police Station Bilga, District Jalandhar Rural.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been named in the case merely on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-
accused Jagjeet @ Major, who disclosed that he purchased the poppy husk from the petitioner.
At this stage, learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Som Nath, submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is found involved in 5 other
cases of similar nature. He has produced the details of those cases, which is taken on record.
The details of cases registered against the petitioner under the
NDPS Act are as under:
Sr.No. Details of FIR Status of case
FIR No.62 dated 19.07.2009 U/S 15 Acquitted on 25.11.2010. of the NDPS Act, P.S. Bilga.
FIR No.161 dated 20.12.2014 U/S Convicted on 09.08.2016. 15 of the NDPS Act, P.S. Bilga.
FIR No.100 dated 07.08.2017 U/S Convicted on 10.04.2019. 15 of the NDPS Act, P.S. Bilga.
FIR No.117 dated 10.10.2018 U/S Pending trial. 22 of the NDPS Act, P.S. Bilga.
FIR No.68 dated 15.04.2020 U/S 15 Under investigation. of the NDPS Act, P.S. Bilga.
Considering the track record of the petitioner that he has been convicted in 2 cases of NDPS Act, though other 2 cases are pending and in 1 case, he
has been acquitted, this Court finds that no case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.
The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
In case the information given by learned State counsel is found incorrect, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek revival of the present petition.
