High CourtsSingle Bench

Liyakat Ali vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 25 February 2021 · Citation: (2021) 02 P&H CK 0313

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Narcotic Drugs And Psychotroic Substantes Act, 1985 — Section 20
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 37089 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

19 paragraphs · 376 words

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.34, dated 7.7.2009, Police Station Kathgarh, District SBS Nagar, under

Section 20 of NDPS Act.

2.

As per the case of prosecution, on 7.7.2009 when the police party had held nakabandi, then a black coloured motorcycle on which three persons

were riding was seen and the driver of the said motorcycle upon noticing the police party tried to turn back but the police was able to apprehend two

of the said riders while the 3rd one managed to escape. The driver of the said motorcycle disclosed his name as Pardeep while the other person

disclosed his name as Birbal and the said persons disclosed the name of the 3rd person who had escaped as Liyakat Ali (petitioner). It is further the

case of prosecution that upon search of the aforesaid two apprehended persons Pardeep and Birbal, 6 kgs of ‘Charas’ was recovered.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case and was never ever present or arrested at

the spot.

4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the name of the petitioner was disclosed by his co-accused at the very moment

when they were apprehended by the police, his complicity is clearly evident. It has further been pointed out that the petitioner had earlier been

declared a ‘Proclaimed Offender’ in the year 2012 and it was subsequently on 23.7.2020 that he surrendered before the police and that as such

he does not deserve the concession of bail.

5.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6.

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot and has been nominated by his co-accused and while also noticing that the

petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 7 months and is not stated to be involved in any other case, further detention of the

petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his

furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.