Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

Bail in Narcotics Case, No Recovery from Petitioner's Possession – P&H HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent order, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has granted bail to the petitioner in a narcotics case where no recovery was made from the petitioner's possession. The judgment, delivered by Justice Deepak Gupta, highlighted that the petitioner's name had emerged solely from a disclosure statement made by co-accused individuals.

The case pertained to FIR No. 580, registered at Police Station Sadar Thanesar, District Kurukshetra, under Sections 15, 20, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The alleged recovery of a substantial quantity of poppy husk and Ganja was made from co-accused individuals, who implicated a supplier in their statements.

The court took note of the fact that no recovery was made from the petitioner's possession and that his name had emerged solely from the disclosure statement. Furthermore, it was revealed that the petitioner had been in custody for a considerable period, and he had already been sentenced in another case.

Justice Deepak Gupta, while granting bail, clarified that the decision did not reflect any comment on the merits of the case. The petitioner was ordered to furnish bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned.

This judgment highlights the importance of concrete evidence and raises questions about relying solely on disclosure statements without corroborating recoveries. The granting of bail in such circumstances emphasizes the principle of presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Decided on: 29.05.2023

Rinku Ram VS State of Haryana 

Latest Legal News