← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/32885/2023allowed

Nirvair Singh v. State Of Punjab

2023-07-17Mr. Justice Pankaj Jain3 pages



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 17.07.2023 Nirvair Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Aman Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Amit Shukla, AAG, Punjab.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.15, dated 30.01.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 18, 61 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot.

2.

Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been produced. The same is taken on record.

3.

Reliance is being placed upon order dated 6th of June, 2023 passed by Co-ordinate Bench wherein co-accused namely Kashmir Singh has been ordered to be admitted to bail in CRM-M No.28690 of 2023 observing as under :

The petitioner has approached this Court by filing the petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case

-22023:PHHC:089166 bearing FIR No.15 dated 30.01.2023 under Sections 18/61 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sujanpur, District Pathankot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the present FIR was lodged on the basis of secret information and petitioner along with two other accused, namely, Gurdit Singh and Nirval Singh were named as accused.

On the basis of secret information, the petitioner along with two other co-accused were apprehended and the Investigating Officer SI Harjinder Singh recovered 1 kg 500 grams of opium from the polythene bag carried by the petitioner. The recovery from the petitioner falls under the non-commercial quantity and as such the embargo under Section 37 (1) (b) of the NDPS Act would not be attracted. The petitioner is stated to be involved in two more  



   

 

        

     



   

 

    

          



  

  



  

       !    

       !"# $ !



   !  %     

 

     



   

 

        " #

 

     $%%&'%'$

 (   

                         

      

  )      #

     

    

    *

   



     #

           

   

   +    

    , -  + !        .

-32023:PHHC:089166 4.

Ld. State Counsel is not in position to make out a case to assert that the case against the petitioner is any way different from that projected against the co-accused Kashmir Singh.

5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.

6.

Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping in view the incarceration suffered by the petitioner i.e. 5 months and 13 days coupled with the fact that case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of his co-accused, considering the parity, the petitioner is held entitled to the same relief. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

Needless to say anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 17, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No