Lethargy Is Not an Exceptional Circumstance: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Striking Off of Defence for Delay in Filing Written Statement Vague Decree of Injunction Can’t Be Executed by Attaching Machines: Rajasthan High Court Strikes Down Execution Order Mere permission to join proceedings without allowing filing of written statement is illusory: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Proceedings Unregistered Power of Attorney Can’t Transfer Property: MP High Court Denies Title, Dismisses Ejectment Suit Mere Non-Recovery of Weapon Is Not Fatal When Circumstantial and Medical Evidence Prove Guilt Beyond Doubt: Allahabad High Court Failure to Examine Gazetted Officer and Magistrate Who Certified Seizure Goes to Root of Fair Trial Under NDPS Act : Calcutta High Court Tender Years Doctrine Is No Longer Good Law: Delhi High Court Slams Mother’s Custody Claim Built on Parental Alienation Negation of Bail is the Rule in NDPS Cases Involving Commercial Quantity: Himachal Pradesh High Court Denies Bail Single Stab Injury in Heat of Passion During Sudden Quarrel Is Not Murder: Kerala High Court Section 10 CPC Inapplicable To Labour Court Proceedings; Stay Of Individual Disputes Denied: Karnataka High Court 138 NI Act | Once Issuance and Signature on Cheque Are Admitted, Burden Shifts on Accused to Dislodge Statutory Presumption: Madras High Court Confession Cannot Substitute Proof: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Convicted of Wife’s Murder "Sole Eyewitness Testimony, Corroborated by Medical and Recovery Evidence, Is Enough to Sustain Conviction Under Section 302 IPC: Allahabad High Court Partition Once Effected Cannot Be Reopened on Vague Allegations of Fraud: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Registered Family Partition Deed Cancellation of Land Acquisition Compensation Without Allegation or Hearing Is Arbitrary: Supreme Court Restores Compensation to Innocent Land Owner Whether Act Was in Discharge of Official Duty Is a Question of Fact — Magistrate, Not High Court, Must Decide: Supreme Court Restricts Writ Interference in BNSS Cases Section 175(4) BNSS | Affidavit Is Not Optional — Even Complaints Against Public Servants Must Follow Procedural Rigour: Supreme Court Magistrate Cannot Be Directed to Recall His Judicial Order by a Writ Court: Supreme Court Warns Against Article 226 Interference in Pending Criminal Proceedings Even In Absence of Written Demand, If Substantial Dispute Exists or Is Apprehended, Reference Under Section 10 ID Act Is Valid: Supreme Court Absence of Classical Signs of Strangulation and Possibility of Hanging Nullifies Homicidal Theory: Supreme Court Holds Medical Evidence Alone Cannot Prove Guilt Confession Must Be Direct Acknowledgment of Guilt, Not Mere Presence at Scene: Supreme Court Slams Misuse of Section 164 CrPC Reversal of Acquittal Without Dislodging Trial Court’s Reasoning Is Impermissible: Supreme Court Restores Acquittal

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