High CourtsSingle Bench

Jagmal Singh @Kala vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 March 2021 · Citation: (2021) 03 P&H CK 0055

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotroic Substantes Act, 1985 — Section 15, 27A, 29
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 42430 Of 2020
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 · 318 words

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J

Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No. 51 dated 29.01.2020

registered under Sections 15, 27A and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra.

Status report by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ladwa, Kurukshetra, filed through e-mail, is taken on record Learned counsel

for the petitioner states that the raid was conducted on a secret information against co-accused Rajbir Singh, who was the driver and one cleaner

namely, Happy Singh. The petitioner was not named in the first disclosure statement, but was indicted in the present case on the basis of the second

disclosure statement suffered by the co-accused on 31.01.2020, to the effect that the petitioner had given a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh for the purchase of

the contraband. No recovery has been effected from the petitioner and the telephonic conversation between the petitioner and Rajbir was because of

them being cousins. He further states that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.10.2020.

Learned State counsel states that there are five cases against the petitioner but he does not dispute the fact that the petitioner stands acquitted in two

cases under the NDPS Act. He further states that challan has been filed and the case is pending for prosecution evidence.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has been in custody since 15.10.2020. Trial of the case would take time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by

keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

In view of the above, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the

petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.