Minor in Live-In Relationship Deemed 'Child in Need of Care' by High Court, Protection Ordered Under Juvenile Justice Act Cheque Signed, Sealed, and Bounced – No Escape from Liability: Delhi High Court Right to Defend Includes Right to Inspect Documents: Calcutta High Court Overrules Trial Court's Rejection of Inspection Petition Court Cannot Tinker with Finalized Consolidation Scheme Under Section 42: Punjab and Haryana High Court Remarriage During Appeal Period is Risky, But Not Void: Andhra Pradesh High Court State Cannot Sleep Over Its Rights: Supreme Court Criticizes Odisha Government for Delayed Appeals in Pension Dispute “Both Hands Intact” Rule is a Relic of the Past: Supreme Court Grants MBBS Admission to Disabled Student Terminal Benefits and Family Pension Alone Do Not Bar Compassionate Appointment, But Financial Distress Must Be Proven – Supreme Court Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC Is Not Limited to Dowry Harassment: Supreme Court Right to Speedy Trial Cannot Be Defeated by Delay Tactics: Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Fast-Tracking of Cheque Bounce Case Framing Charges Under Section 193 IPC Without Following Section 340 CrPC is Illegal: Calcutta High Court Doctrine of Part Performance Under Section 53-A TPA Not Applicable Without Proof of Possession: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Allegations of False Implication Cannot Override Strong Forensic and Documentary Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction in Elderly Woman’s Murder and Robbery Case Applicant Not a Sexual Predator, Relationship Was Consensual: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in POCSO Case Fraudulent Transfers to Evade Creditors Cannot Escape Scrutiny: Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Execution Petition Gujarat High Court Rules That Contractual Employees Cannot Claim Regularization of Services Serious Charges and Victim’s Suicide Justify Continued Detention: Gauhati High Court Denies Bail in POCSO Case No Permanent Establishment in India, Rejects Notional Income Taxation: Delhi High Court Rules in Favor of Nokia OY Statutory Bail Under NDPS Act Can Be Denied If FSL Report Reaches Court Before Bail Plea": Calcutta High Court Termination After Acquittal is Unjust: Bombay High Court Quashes Dismissal of Shikshan Sevak, Orders 50% Back Wages Denial of MBBS Seat Due to Administrative Lapses is Unacceptable": Andhra Pradesh High Court Awards ₹7 Lakh Compensation to Wronged Student Sessions Court Cannot Reclassify Non-Bailable Offences While Granting Anticipatory Bail: Allahabad 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

Similar News