Narinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 2025

0
157

[ad_1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Narinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 16 April, 2025

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050050



CRM-M-20511-2025                                                          -1-

103


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                           CRM-M-20511-2025
                                           DECIDED ON: 16.04.2025

NARINDER SINGH
                                                       .....PETITIONER

                                     VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                       .....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:    Mr. IPS Kohli, Advocate
            for the petitioner (through hybrid mode).

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. Relief sought

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section

482 of The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking the grant of

anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 20 dated 10.02.2025

registered under section 15 of NDPS Act, P.S. Koom Kalan, District

Ludhiana (Annexure P-1).

2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in

the FIR as under:-

To, the Station House Officer, Police Station Koom Kalna, Jai
Hind, today myself ASI along with Ct Sharanjit Singh No.
3883/Ludhiana, CT Mandeep Singh No. 3870/Ludhiana, L/CT
Gursharan Kaur No. 289/Ludhiana, PHG Goldi Singh No.
29615 on government vehicle bearing registration No. PB65-
BG-5542 were present at T-point Rattangarh in connection
with patrolling and search of bad elements, then a special
informer came to me and has given information that Narinder

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 00:21:24 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050050

CRM-M-20511-2025 -2-

Singh son of Gurmej Singh and Sandeep Kaur daughter of
Narinder Singh residents of village Chaunta, Police Station
Koom Kalan, dispirit Ludhiana are doing the work of
supplying poppy husk in the adjoining villages and are
earning good profit from this work. Today also they are going
to village Miyani side for the supply of poppy husk, if
immediate raid be conducted then Narinder Singh and
Sandeep Kaur can be apprehended along with poppy husk.

This information is true and reliable. Said act of keeping
poppy husk by Narinder Singh and Sandeep Kaur without any
license, is covered under section 15-61-85 of NDPS Act,
therefore after getting typed the Ruqa on private laptop lying
in our car through L/CT Gursharan Kaur against Narinder
Singh son of Gurmej Singh an Sandeep Kaur daughter of
Narinder Singh residents of village Chaunta, Police Station
Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana, the same is being sent to the
Police Station by the hand of CT Sharanjit Singh No.
3883/Ludhiana. After register case, number of the same be
intimated. After preparing special reports, the same be sent to
the officers. Control room be intimated through wireless.
Myself ASI along with are going to the place as informed by
secret informer towards village Miyani side. Sd/ Sanjeev
Kumar ASI, Police Station Koom Kalan, District Ludhiana.
Dated: 10.02.2025.”

3. Contention

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged

contraband i.e. 09 kg and 200 grams of poppy husk was recovered from the

co-accused Sandeep Kaur, who has already been granted the concession of

anticipatory bail by the trial Court vide order dated 11.03.2025 (Annexure P-

3). He further contends that the quantity of recovered contraband is non-

commercial in nature. It has been further contended that nothing has been

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 00:21:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050050

CRM-M-20511-2025 -3-

recovered from the present petitioner and is ready and willing to join the

investigation and cooperate with the investigating officer concerned.

Notice of motion.

On behalf of the State

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG,

Punjab does not controvert the above-said fact and seeks dismissal of the

instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is the kingpin of the drug

racket.

4. Analysis

Be that as it may, considering the fact that the alleged

contraband i.e. 09 kg and 200 grams of poppy husk was recovered from the

co-accused namely Sandeep Kaur, who has already been granted the

concession of anticipatory bail by the trial Court vide order dated 11.03.2025

(Annexure P-3); the quantity of recovered contraband is non-commercial in

nature; nothing has been recovered from the present petitioner.

Also considering the undertaking given before this Court that

the petitioner is ready and willing to join the investigation in addition to the

fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required at this stage

as nothing is to be recovered from him.

5. Relief

In the light of above, the petitioner is directed to be released on

anticipatory bail subject to him joining investigation with the Investigating

Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of

personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by

the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS,

which are reproduced below:-

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 17-04-2025 00:21:25 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:050050

CRM-M-20511-2025 -4-

‘When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a direction
under sub-section (1), it may include such conditions in such
directions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may
think fit, including-

(i) a condition that the person shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the
previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-section (3) of
section 480, as if the bail were granted under that section.’

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not

comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within a

period of one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically

stands cancelled.

In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands allowed.




                                                 (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
16.04.2025                                             JUDGE
Poonam Negi


Whether speaking/reasoned               Yes/No
Whether reportable                      Yes/No




                                       4 of 4
                    ::: Downloaded on - 17-04-2025 00:21:25 :::
 

[ad_2]

Source link

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here