High CourtsSingle Bench

Surjit Singh @ Rinku vs State Of Punjab

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 17 September 2021 · Citation: (2021) 09 P&H CK 0038

HON’BLE JUDGES
Avneesh Jhingan, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Section 15
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Petition (M) No. 32604 Of 2021 (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

8 paragraphs · 236 words

Avneesh Jhingan, J

[1] Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through Video Conference.

[2] This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 65, dated 19th June, 2021, under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'Act') registered at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur. [3] As per the allegations, the police acted upon a secret information on 19th June, 2021 and apprehended Surjit Singh @ Rinku (Petitioner) from village Jitewal Khurd Firni. 4 Kgs poppy husk was recovered from his conscious possession.

[4] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery made from the petitioner is of intermediate quantity.

[5] Learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail and submits that the petitioner earlier was convicted in two NDPS cases. She further submits that FSL report is yet to be received. [6] No reply has been filed by respondent-State in spite of taking time.

[7] The recovery from the petitioner is of intermediate quantity. No recovery is to be made. The investigation and conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is granted bail on furnishing surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

[8] The petition is allowed.

[9] It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.