Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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