Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam Co-Sharer Has Superior Right of Pre-emption Even If Land Is Gair Mumkin Bara: Punjab & Haryana High Court Neighbours Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC Merely For Alleged Instigation: Karnataka High Court No Party Has a Right to Demand a Local Commissioner — It's Purely the Court’s Discretion: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Civil Revision

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