Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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