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 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