Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KHUSHI RAM versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Khushi Ram v. State of Punjab - CRM-65696-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8712 (16 October 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No. 65696-M of 2006

DATE OF DECISION : 27.10.2006

Khushi Ram

.... PETITIONER

Versus

State of Punjab

..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

* * *

This is second petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 36 dated 7.5.2006 under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Khanauri, District Sangrur. His earlier petition was dismissed as not pressed on August 17, 2006.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of the FIR.

In this case, the petitioner along with his co-accused Ashok Kumar and Dharmender Singh was arrested on the spot, when they were travelling in a car and from the said car, 70 Kgs. of poppy husk (commercial quantity) was recovered.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that co-accused of the petitioner, namely Ashok Kumar, who was driving the vehicle, has been granted regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated September 26, 2006, passed in Crl. Misc. No. 52672-M of 2006, while observing as under :-

"As per allegations, 70 Kgs. of poppy-husk is stated to have been recovered from the present petitioner.

Petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last more than 2 months.

Recovery in this case is not heavy.

Bail to the satisfaction of trial court." Counsel for the petitioner prays for regular bail of the petitioner on the ground of parity.

After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the contents of the FIR as well as the aforesaid order, I am not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, as in my opinion, Section 37 of the NDPS Act has not been noticed in the aforesaid order, while granting bail to Ashok Kumar. In view of the alleged recovery at the spot from the car, in which the petitioner was travelling, I am not inclined to grant the concession of regular bail to him.

Dismissed.

October 27, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.