Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

"No Grounds for Arrest; Anticipatory Bail Granted in NDPS Case ," States High Court of Punjab and Haryana

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Chandigarh, July 28, 2023 - In a landmark ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted anticipatory bail to Pushpinder Kumar alias Pushpinder Singh alias Tinku. The case had been filed under Sections 15, 18, 20, 21, and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, presiding over the case, stated, "In view of the above, it can safely be construed that there is nothing to support the case of the prosecution, even as per the assertions of the police. As such, the petitioner deserves to be protected against his arrest."

The court allowed the petition on grounds of no substantial evidence against the petitioner. It ruled that the petitioner, if arrested, must be released on bail, provided he furnishes personal bonds/surety, and complies with the investigation as and when required, in accordance with Section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The case had been lodged at the Police Station City Hoshiarpur, District Hoshiarpur. The petitioner's counsel had argued that the case was fabricated and registered with a mala fide intention. The prosecution had no evidence to support its case, leading to this decision by the court.

Furthermore, the person who lodged the FIR without any substantial basis has been ordered to pay compensation of Rs.10,000 to the petitioner. "Since the FIR has been got registered even before creating a basis for that, and due to the FIR, the petitioner has been put to the harassment and expenses," the judge noted in his order.

Date of Decision: 26th July 2023

Pushpinder Kumar vs   State of Punjab   

Latest Legal News