MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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