High CourtsSingle Bench

Harpreet Singh @ Denny vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 8 October 2018 · Citation: (2018) 10 P&H CK 0084

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajbir Sehrawat, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 22, 61, 85
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No.31233 of 2018 (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

16 paragraphs · 342 words

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail pending trial in case FIR No.257 dated 27.11.2017

registered under Sections 22/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Station Division No.1, District Jalandhar.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged recovery from the petitioner is of 20 injections of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride, containing 2 ml

solution each and 20 injections of Avil. It is further contended that the substance involved in the injections of Avil has not been declared as a narcotic

substance, therefore, recovery of these injections is irrelevant for the purpose of the present case. So far as the injections of Buprenorphine

Hydrochloride are concerned, counsel submits that the actual content of Buprenorphine Hydrochloride found in these injections is less than even the

small quantity. Counsel has relied upon a judgment of this Court in CRM-M-35080 of 2018 â€" Rajvir Singh @ Raju v. State of Punjab decided on

21.08.2018, to support his argument. It is further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 26.02.2018 in this case.

The trial is yet to start. The petitioner is not required for any investigation purposes.

On the other hand, counsel for the State, being instructed by ASI Gurdev Singh, submits that the recovery from the petitioner is more than 20 grams,

which is prohibited for this substance. Although the counsel for the State has not disputed the fact regarding the custody of the petitioner or the fact

that the trial has not started so far, however, the counsel has submitted that there are two other cases against the petitioner.

In response to the above submissions of the State Counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is already on bail in those

cases except the present one.

In view of the above, but without commenting any further upon merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. It is ordered that the petitioner be

released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/ sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court/ Duty Magistrate.