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 to Petitioner in NDPS Case, Observes No Recovery from Her

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, presided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aman Chaudhary, granted regular bail to the petitioner, Harjit Kaur, in a case registered under Sections 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. The court observed that the petitioner has been in custody for 7 months and 8 days and that no recovery of contraband was made from her.

The petitioner's counsel, Mr. A.S. Brar, argued that his client was falsely implicated based on a disclosure statement of her husband, Bohar Singh, who is also a co-accused in the case. He further emphasized that the charges were framed on April 20, 2023, but none of the 20 witnesses have been examined so far.

Referring to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner's counsel argued that both the petitioner and her husband were wrongly accused and that no recovery was effected from the petitioner. He also highlighted that the petitioner has no previous criminal record.

On the other hand, the Senior Deputy Advocate General of Punjab, Mr. H.S. Sullar, opposed the bail application, citing the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband from the petitioner's husband. However, he could not refute the defense's claims regarding the stage of the case and the petitioner's clean record.

After considering the facts and circumstances, Justice Aman Chaudhary observed that the trial is likely to take considerable time, and the petitioner's further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, the court allowed the petition and ordered the release of Harjit Kaur on regular bail. The court imposed several conditions on the petitioner, including non-tampering with evidence, non-intimidation of witnesses, mandatory appearance before the trial court, and not committing any similar offenses.

In the judgment, Justice Chaudhary made it clear that the observations made in the present proceedings are limited to the purpose of the case and do not constitute an opinion on the merits of the matter. The trial will proceed independently of the court's observations.

Date Of Decision: 20.07.2023

Harjit Kaur  vs State of Punjab

Latest Legal News