Veerpal Kaur v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:13.10.2021 Veerpal Kaur ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

Present:

Mr. D. N. Ganeriwala, Advocate, for the petitioner.

       ***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (ORAL) ase heard via       Vide this petition, the petitioner seeks the concession of 'regular bail' under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., upon FIR no.90, dated 25.02.2021, having been registered at Police Station City Barnala, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 21/22/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985.

On September 27, 2021 the following order had been passed in this case by this court:- "ase heard via       

      

   

   ! "     #  
 ! " " 

-2-  !  

    " !   

  "

!  



  "    "

 !         ""



$ 

  

%&   '



()*+  "      , " , $(!   "

 - "        

  "

""

 

%&   "

!  

!     " "   

 " . 

   "   

 %&   

   (/(0&0&(!    "

      "   ""  "  ""  1 "!      "

2   Today Mr. Ganeriwala points to Annexure R-1 annexed with the reply filed by the SSP, Barnala, dated 13.08.2021, to submit that even as per the report sent under Section 42(2) of the NDPS Act, 1985 (a copy of that report being Annexure R-1 itself), it was only sent by way of a ruqqa to the Police Station City Barnala, by Sub-Inspector Gurbachan Singh, with him further pointing to the fact that even as per the copy of the FIR itself (copy Annexure P-1), the said ruqqa/report was received by Assistant Sub-Inspector Gurmail Singh, who very obviously is not a superior of Sub-Inspector Gurbachan Singh. That being so, with Annexure R-1 annexed with the SSPs' reply itself showing it to be a report under Section 42(2) and it not having been sent to any officer senor by the apprehending officer, !  #      

 

   "    "   . "

       3     , 

 

  "" 

  "  

    "  "

   "  ! 
   "

 "     "  .   

%&4&5   "

 ()*+!"  

 ! the petition is allowed

-3and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. It is made clear that if any believable evidence is brought to the notice of the competent court that in fact a report under Section 42(2) was sent to an officer superior to SI Gurbachan Singh, within 72 hours as postulated in the said provision the prosecution would take appropriate steps in that regard. It is also to be noticed that learned State counsel has submitted that the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioner would be something that would need to be seen at the time of the trial.

I do not agree with that contention because as already noticed hereinabove, this court is dealing with the liberty of an individual in the context of an Act which provides for very stringent punishment; and consequently, as is well settled law, if the basic safeguards provided in the said Act itself are not seen to be complied with, in my opinion that would be reason enough for this court to invoke jurisdiction in terms of Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the Act of 1985, to admit the petitioner to bail, with all observations made hereinabove obviously being only in the context of a petition filed under the provisions of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C.