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 Regular Bail in NDPS Case, Cites Inadmissibility of Co-accused’s Statement

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent development, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh granted regular bail to Jaswinder Singh, the petitioner, in a Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case. The judgement, delivered on 20th July 2023, came in response to the petitioner’s plea for bail in connection with FIR No.304 dated 30.06.2022, which involved charges under Sections 15(c), 27-A, 29 of the NDPS Act.

“Admittedly, the petitioner is named in the disclosure statement of his co-accused. Pursuant to his arrest, no recovery of any contraband has been effected from him.”

During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel, Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate, vehemently contended that his client had been falsely implicated and that the disclosure statement of his co-accused, which named the petitioner, was inadmissible as evidence. On the other hand, the State, represented by Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana, cited the petitioner’s criminal antecedents as a reason to oppose bail.

Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi, presiding over the case, took into consideration the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various relevant judgments. The Court held that the statement of the accused against his co-accused in police custody was indeed inadmissible as evidence. Furthermore, it noted that two co-accused had already been granted bail, and no recovery of contraband was made from the petitioner.

In its decision, the High Court emphasized that the connection between the petitioner’s car and the alleged crime would be established during the trial. Given that the co-accused were already granted bail and considering the absence of any recovery from the petitioner, the Court found no necessity for further incarceration.

In light of the above, the High Court ordered the release of Jaswinder Singh on regular bail, subject to compliance with certain conditions. The petitioner was directed to appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of each month until the conclusion of the trial and submit an affidavit affirming non-involvement in any other criminal activity. Additionally, an FDR (Fixed Deposit Receipt) of Rs.2,00,000/- was to be deposited, with forfeiture in case of unauthorized absence from the trial.

The judgement reaffirms the importance of proper admissibility of evidence in legal proceedings and highlights the Court’s commitment to ensuring a fair trial for the accused.

 

 Date of Decision: 20.07.2023

Jaswinder Singh vs State of Haryana

Latest Legal News