Sunil v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M No. 9631 of 2021 -1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CRM-M No. 9631 of 2021 Date of Decision: 07.12.2021 Sunil ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

Present:

None for the petitioner.

Mr. Tanuj Sharma, AAG, Haryana **** SURESHWAR THAKUR , J.

(ORAL) 1.

FIR bearing No. 21 of 20.1.2021, constituting therein offences embodied under Sections 20 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, stands registered against the petitioner-bail applicant at Police Station Sector-5, Panchkula.

2.

This Court, through an order made on 14.9.2021, had granted interim bail to the petitioner.

3.

The bail petitioner is alleged to be the apposite supplier to the accused concerned, from whose alleged conscious, and, exclusive possession, the relevant recoveries, became effected at the spot, by the investigating officer concerned.

4.

Be that as it may, since it is submitted by the Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, on instructions meted to him by ASI Kuldeep Singh, that the weight of the relevant seizure, falls within intermediate GURPREET SINGH 2021.12.09 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh quantity. Therefore, obviously the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,

CRM-M No. 9631 of 2021 -2are not attracted thereon. Naturally, hence this Court may proceed to make absolute the order, made by this Court on 14.9.2021, wherethrough ad interim bail was granted to the bail applicant-petitioner. 5.

Therefore, the afore made order is made abosulte, however, on the same terms and conditions, as carried therein. 6.

The present petition stands disposed of.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE December 07, 2021 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

Yes/No GURPREET SINGH 2021.12.09 15:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh