SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

High Court Grants Bail in NDPS Case Citing “False Implication” and “Lack of Progress in Trial”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh granted bail to the petitioner, Amrik Singh, in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) case. The judgment was delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan on 24th July 2023. The case, CRM-M-7520-2022 (O&M), involved FIR No. 148, dated 27th June 2021, under Sections 15, 25, and 29 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur. The court’s decision hinged on key factors, including allegations of “false implication” and “lack of progress in the trial.”

During the proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. P.S. Sekhon, asserted that the investigating officer, ASI Jagtar Singh, had a history of falsely implicating accused individuals in NDPS cases. In support of this claim, reference was made to a previous FIR registered against ASI Jagtar Singh under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Sekhon argued that the petitioner, Amrik Singh, was entitled to parity with a co-accused, Jarnail Singh @ Toni, who had already been granted regular bail in a related case.

Notably, the court found merit in the petitioner’s claims, as the trial had made little progress since the arrest of the accused in June 2021. Moreover, no further recovery was made during the investigation. The judge observed that, “having the conspicuous of the facts, further that no recovery is to be made from the petitioner(s), they are in custody since June 2021 and there is no substantial progress in the trial.” The court also referred to two Supreme Court cases, SLP (Crl.) No.6690 of 2022 and SLP (Crl.) No.1166 of 2023, where bail was granted under similar circumstances.

High  court granted bail to the petitioner, subject to the fulfillment of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. The judgment clarified that the observations made were solely for the purpose of deciding the bail petitions and should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the cases.

Date of Decision: 24th July 2023

Amrik Singh  vs State of Punjab 

Latest Legal News