Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa 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