Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi 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