High CourtsSingle Bench

Harmanjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 1 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 P&H CK 0011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Raj Mohan Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotroic Substantes Act, 1985 — Section 22, 50 · Prisons Act, 1894 — Section 52A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 42190 Of 2020(O&M)
Ask AI about this case

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

14 paragraphs · 243 words

Raj Mohan Singh, J

Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.205 dated 31.07.2020 registered under Section 22 of the

NDPS Act and Section 52-A of Prisons Act at Police Station City Rupnagar, District Rupnagar.

As per allegations, from the personal search of the petitioner, 32 intoxicants tablets (Adnok) were recovered when he returned after attending the

Court proceedings.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the alleged recovery is effected on 11.02.2020, but the FIR in question was lodged only on

31.07.2020 i.e. after a delay of more than 5 months. Even in case of personal search, Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with.

Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Narender Singh submits that the delay has occasioned due to pending inquiry against the petitioner.

Petitioner is having antecedent behaviour of criminal activities. Petitioner is in custody since 21.08.2020.

At this stage, keeping in view the delay in lodging the FIR and recovery from the personal search of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the

petitioner on regular bail, without adverting to the merits of the case.

In view of above, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.