High CourtsSingle Bench

Monu vs State of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 July 2016 · Citation: (2016) 3 LawHerald 2437

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Section 15
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M-19013 of 2016 (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

6 paragraphs · 245 words

Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.—(Oral) - The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ''the Cr.P.C.'') seeking regular bail in case FIR No.51 dated 26.04.2016, registered under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, (for short, ''the NDPS'') at Police Station Maqsudan, District Jalandhar (Rural).

2.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. She submits that the petitioner is in custody since 26.04.2016 and not involved in any other case under NDPS Act, which fact is not disputed by the learned State counsel. Lastly, she states that the quantity in question is small in nature.

3.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel oppose the bail petition.

4.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5.

In view of the facts that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under NDPS Act, he is in custody since 26.4.2016 and the alleged quantity being small in nature, no purpose would be served in keeping the petitioner behind the bars, without adverting to the merits of the instant case, this petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail, on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

6.

Anything said herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.