Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

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

Similar News