High CourtsSingle Bench

Kulbir Singh Alias Bittu vs State Of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 June 2023 · Citation: (2023) 06 P&H CK 0030

HON’BLE JUDGES
Deepak Gupta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 438 · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 21(b), 27A, 61, 85
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 30445 Of 2023
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

9 paragraphs · 250 words

Deepak Gupta, J

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.27, dated 16.01.2023, under Sections 21(b),27A/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, registered at Police Station City Hisar, District Hisar.

As per the allegations, 6.02 grams of heroin (chita) was recovered from the co-accused Virender @ Balinder, who in his disclosure statement has stated that he had purchased the contraband from the petitioner, namely, Kulbir Singh @ Bittu.

It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case; that his name does not find any mention in the FIR; and that disclosure statement of co-accused is not admissible.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Randhir Singh, Addl. A.G., Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State.

Learned State counsel has placed on record copy of the disclosure statement made by the accused revealing that it is the petitioner, who had supplied the contraband to the co-accused. Besides as many as 06 cases were earlier registered against the petitioner, out of which, one was registered in the year 2022 under the provisions of NDPS Act showing the criminal antecedents of the petitioner.

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances but without commenting upon the merits of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed.