NDPS | Mismatch in the Contents of the FIR and Notice Under Section 50 Regarding Signatures of the Petitioner is Evident – High Court Grants Bail
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in a recent judgment, has granted bail to an individual accused under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. This decision notably highlights the court’s observation of a mismatch in the signature language in the FIR and the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Legal Point of the Judgment
The pivotal legal issue in this case revolves around the bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., particularly in the context of offences under the NDPS Act. The judgment brings into focus the court’s perception of the discrepancies in the documentation related to the NDPS Act.
Facts and Issues Arising in the Judgment
The petitioner was apprehended for possessing a commercial quantity of Tramadol Hydrochloride. The defense pointed out discrepancies in the signature language on the notice served under Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the details in the FIR. The prosecution admitted to a typographical error but argued it was a bona fide mistake.
Detailed Court Assessment
Discrepancy in Signature Language: The court acknowledged the evident mismatch between the signature language in the FIR and the notice under Section 50 of the NDPS Act.
Bail Considerations: Emphasizing the petitioner’s status as a first-time offender and the completion of the investigation, the court granted bail with specific conditions aimed at preventing misuse of the liberty granted.
Refraining from Merit Judgement: The court expressly stated that the observations made were not to be considered as a comment on the merits of the case.
Decision The court ordered the release of the petitioner on bail, subject to various conditions including the submission of bail/surety bonds, non-tampering of evidence, regular trial attendance, and the non-commitment of any offense while on bail.
Date of Decision: April 2, 2024
Prince @ Kalagi Versus State of Punjab
