High CourtsSingle Bench

Naveen @ Babbu - Petitioner @HASH State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 3 October 2016 · Citation: (2017) 2 CriCC 229 : (2016) 4 LawHerald 3352 : (2017) 1 RCRCriminal 168

HON’BLE JUDGES
Jitendra Chauhan, J.
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) — Section 20, Section 20, Section 37
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
CRM-M No. 33009 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 · 236 words

Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)—By filing the present petition, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought regular bail in FIR No. 203 dated 21.03.2015, registered under Section 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ''NDPS Act''), at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat.

2.

It is contended that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has been falsely implicated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, Lukman, who has already been admitted to regular bail. The petitioner is not involved in any other FIR and he is in custody since 16.05.2015.

3.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer of bail and states that recovery is commercial in nature and the FSL report is still awaited.

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

4.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other FIR and he is in custody since 16.05.2015, the conclusion of trial will take a long time, without adverting to the merits of the instant case, this petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail during the pendency of trial, on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

5.

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