Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi 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