Rahul v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 25.01.2021 Rahul
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Mehta, Sr. DAG, Punjab ***** AMOL RATTAN SINGH, J. (Oral) Case heard by video conferencing.
On 26.11.2020, the following order had been passed by this court:- "
! " # $
%
& &% '
()! #*##% + , # -.% /#0.#-0-0% * '
1
% +
% "" '
--2-!
3 *' % !.4# 5
"
" + ,
" " " " )40
# 6 "
" "# 7 8
'
%
-2-
"
%
"
"9
" '
' ' # : % " "" "
%
%
"
21;2
; # $
%
& &% " + , * '
1
% +
# 5
"
-000
" " "9
% +'5
# 6 < " $ < ' =5
#'
*<-0 (9),,!4)%
"
+'5
%
"
" #
'
%
"
#
% " "" " %
"
"
21;2
; %
# <
-4#0 #-0- #
"
#>
-3Thus, the said order the co-accused of the petitioner, Veerpal, had been admitted to bail by this court on the ground that she was named as a co-accused only on a disclosure allegedly made by the present petitioner, Rahul.
As regards the present petitioner, he was admitted to interim bail on the ground that the FSL report had not been received and it was not certain, firstly, as to whether the material stated to have been recovered from the petitioner as per the investigating agency was contraband or not, in terms of the provisions of the NDPS Act; as also the quantity thereof. Today learned State counsel submits that the FSL report has been received, stating therein that it was 820 grams powder of 'tramadol hydrochloride', with commercial quantity being above 250 grams. That being so, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not wish to press the present petition.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with the interim order dated 26.11.2020, passed in his favour, vacated.
25.01.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE