Wife Exaggerating Husband's Income In Maintenance Affidavit Is Not Perjury: Allahabad High Court Dismisses Husband's Section 340 Application Candidate Cannot Be Faulted For Missing Disclaimers In Form-26 Supplied By Returning Officer: Bombay High Court Dismissal Without Departmental Enquiry Violates Natural Justice When Criminal Conviction Is Set Aside: Chhattisgarh High Court Orders Reinstatement Cipla MD Gets Relief: Himachal Pradesh HC Quashes Drug Prosecution For Absence of Specific Averment on Day-to-Day Role Mandatory Notice Under Section 106(3) Railways Act Applies To 'Overcharges', Not 'Illegal Charges': Gauhati High Court Insurer Can't Escape Paying Accident Victims Even With Invalid Licence Defence — Avoidance Clause In Policy Seals Liability: Gujarat High Court Fraud Vitiates All Solemn Acts — Once A Claim Is Founded On Fraud, The Entire Edifice Of The Claim Collapses And No Relief Can Be Granted: Supreme Court Like Cases Must Be Decided Alike": Orissa High Court Directs State To Pay Service Benefits To Deceased Employee's Heirs Claiming Parity Ancient Jain Idol Cannot Remain In Police Custody Under Treasure Trove Act: Allahabad High Court Orders Transfer To Museum Income Tax | Receivables For Warranty Reimbursements Constitute An 'Asset' Under Section 153A For Reopening Assessment: Delhi High Court Married Persons Cannot Claim Police Protection For Live-In Relationships Without First Obtaining Divorce: Allahabad High Court Breach Of Private Compromise Cannot Ipso Facto Trigger Cancellation Of Probation Granted On Legally Sustainable Grounds: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Interference Under Article 226 In Eviction Proceedings When Land Compensation Is Deposited In Competent Court: Kerala High Court "Immediately Preceding Three Years" For Land Compensation Must Be Calculated From Date Of Section 11 Notification, Not Calendar Year: Jharkhand High Court Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Attributed To Minor Children; State Strictly Liable For Unsecured Hazardous Reservoirs: J&K High Court Party Seeking Transfer Can't Hide Pending Transfer Petition From High Court: Karnataka HC Quashes Transfer Order Mother Can Represent Muslim Minor As 'Next Friend' In Civil Suit As CPC Provisions Are Secular And Not Tied To Personal Law: Calcutta High Court First Appellate Court Must Frame Points For Determination Under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC, Cannot Remand Cryptically: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Recovery Of Stolen Property Cannot Be Sole Basis For Murder Conviction If Chain Of Circumstances Is Broken: Bombay High Court MP Constable's Shell Company, Rs.6.44 Crore Properties, Ghost Cooperative Society: HC Rejects PMLA Bail of Director Who Had 'No Financial Capability' To Buy What He Bought

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