Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Virsa Singh v. State Of Punjab

Virsa Singh v. State Of Punjab

(High Court Of Punjab And Haryana)

Criminal Miscelleanous No. 47098 of 2004 | 04-03-2005

M.M. Kumar, J.

1. This petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. 1973 prays for release of the petitioner on bail pending trial in case FIR No.38, dated 28.3.2003 under Sections 15/61/85 of the N.D.P.S.Act registered at Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana.

2. The application of the petitioner for grant of bail was earlier dismissed by this Court on 3.11.2003 being Crl.M.No.50588-M of 2003.

3. Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the requirement of Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has not been fulfilled as the offer made to the petitioner was not complete as interpreted by Full Bench of this Court in Mohan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005(2) Criminal Court Cases 623 (P&H): 2004(4) RCR 260. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner is in custody since 28.3.2003 and a period of about 2 years has passed. The trial is yet to be concluded.

4. Mr.Sukant Gupta,learned State counsel has argued that Section 50 of thewould not be available to a person who is not carrying the contraband on his person and is suspected to be carrying in a bag or a suitcase. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Honble Supreme Court in case Narayanaswamy Ravishankar v. AssttDirector, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, : (2002)8 SCC 7 [LQ/SC/1996/528] . Learned counsel has also apprised the Court that prosecution evidence in this case has been concluded and the case is now fixed for defence evidence on 14.4.2005.

5. Without going into the merits as to whether provision of Section 50 is attracted to the facts of the present case lest it prejudice the rights of the parties at the trial, I deem it a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail because prosecution evidence has already been completed and the case is now fixed for defence evidence. The petitioner has already remained in custody for about than 2 years, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

6. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.

Advocate List
  • For Petitioner : Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu
  • For Respondent : Mr. Sukant Gupta, DAG, Punjab
Bench
  • HON'BLE JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR, J.
Eq Citations
  • 2005 (2) RCR (CRIMINAL) 659
  • LQ/PunjHC/2005/375
Head Note

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — Ss.15, 50 and 67 — Grant of bail — Incomplete offer of bail — Validity — Petitioner in custody since 28.3.2003 — Period of about 2 years has passed — Trial is yet to be concluded — Prosecution evidence has been concluded and case is now fixed for defence evidence — Held, without going into the merits as to whether S. 50 is attracted to the facts of the present case lest it prejudice the rights of the parties at the trial, it is a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail because prosecution evidence has already been completed and the case is now fixed for defence evidence — The petitioner has already remained in custody for about than 2 years, therefore, the instant petition deserves to be allowed — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, Ss. 15, 50 and 67