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
10 paragraphs · 354 wordsRam Chand Gupta, J.
Crl.M.No.31134 of 2012
Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl.M.No.M-15471 of 2012
The present petition filed u/s 439 Cr.P.C.is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.2, dated 17.1.2012, under Sections 21/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, u/s 25 of the Arms Act and u/s 3/ 4 I.P.Act, 14 F.Act, registered at Police Station State Special Operation Cell Amritsar, District Amritsar.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar.
This is second application for bail filed by petitioner-accused. Earlier bail application was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.4.2012 passed in Crl.M.No.M-10144 of 2012.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-accused that he has not been named in the FIR and that no recovery has been effected from him and he has been falsely implicated in this case on the statement of co-accused, which cannot be used against the present petitioner-accused.
However, there are allegations that petitioner-accused was earlier involved in a case under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and, however, while on bail in that case he crossed over to Pakistan. Co-accused Rashid Ahmad had disclosed to the police that he met petitioner-accused in Pakistan in October/November 2011 and that due to help provided by the petitioner-accused, he had crossed over to India alongwith heroin and fake currency notes. He had also stated that applicant-accused had also crossed over to Pakistan and returned with consignment of heroin and fake currency notes. Case is at the initial stage of investigation. There are serious allegations against petitioner accused, in view of the disclosure statement made by co-accused.
Hence, in view of these facts, it is not such a case in which bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused, at this stage. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Sucha Singh for grant of bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.