High CourtsSingle Bench

Parveen vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 14 September 2018 · Citation: (2018) 09 P&H CK 0094

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rajbir Sehrawat, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 20, 42
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous -M- No. 36522 of 2018 (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

16 paragraphs · 320 words

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of bail pending trial in case FIR No.388 dated 04.08.2017

registered under Section 20 of NDPS Act at Police Station Sadar Dadri, District Charkhi Dadri.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that although the recovery alleged from the petitioner is 3.29 kg of charas, however, this recovery is totally

concocted. To support his argument, counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the requirement of Section 42 of NDPS Act was not complied with

since the secret information was not sent to the higher officials. Counsel further submits that even the alleged witnesses of recovery from the

petitioner have not supported the case against the petitioner during the trial. This is despite the fact that the alleged witnesses of recovery happen to be

the Police Personnels. This shows that the petitioner has been wrongly implicated in the present case. Counsel further submits that in any case, the

petitioner is in custody since 04.08.2017. So far only eight witnesses out of 15 have been examined by the prosecution. The trial is likely to take long

time. No purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody.

On the other hand, counsel for the State, being instructed by HC Suresh Kumar, submits that the recovery from the petitioner is of commercial

quantity. The trial is in progress. Therefore, the petitioner should not be released on bail.

However, even the Police Officials, including the erstwhile Investigating Officer have not fully supported the case of the prosecution.

The petitioner is in custody for a long time.

Therefore, in view of the above submissions made by counsel for the petitioner, but without commenting further upon merits of the case, the present

petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail pending trial on his furnishing bail bonds/ sureties to the satisfaction of the trial

Court/ Duty Magistrate.