Cannot say implicated by co-accused to hunt anticipatory bail: HC

Cannot say implicated by co-accused to hunt anticipatory bail: HC



Tribune Information Service

Chandigarh, September 15

The Punjab and Haryana Excessive Courtroom has dominated that pleas comparable to non-recovery of contraband and implication on the idea of disclosure assertion by a co-accused will be taken whereas looking for common bail or remaining listening to after the conclusion of the trial in drug instances. Such pleas by the accused don’t warrant the grant of anticipatory bail.

NDPS case

The assertion by Justice Vikas Bahl of the HC got here on a plea looking for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered on June 12 beneath the provisions of the Narcotic Medicine and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS) Act on the Lohian police station in Jalandhar district.

The assertion by Justice Vikas Bahl of the HC got here on a petition looking for the grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered on June 12 beneath the provisions of the NDPS Act on the Lohian police station in Jalandhar district.

The petitioner’s counsel instructed Justice Bahl’s Bench that he was not named within the FIR and the restoration was carried out from the co-accused. The petitioner was implicated on the idea of their disclosure assertion. Inserting reliance on the Supreme Courtroom judgment within the case of “Tofan Singh versus the State of Tamil Nadu”, the counsel contended that the assertion of the co-accused earlier than the police implicating one other particular person was not admissible in proof. As such, the concession of anticipatory bail needs to be granted.

After listening to rival contentions and going by means of the paperwork, Justice Bahl asserted {that a} perusal of a SC order in one other case, “State of Haryana versus Samarth”, confirmed that the HC’s coordinate Bench granted anticipatory bail on the grounds that restoration was not constituted of the accused they usually had been implicated solely on the idea of disclosure assertion by the principle accused. The coordinate Bench additionally positioned reliance on Tofan Singh judgment whereas granting anticipatory bail.

The SC, on the similar time, noticed within the case that the advantage of Tofan Singh judgment could possibly be taken whereas looking for common bail or on the time of ultimate listening to after the conclusion of the trial. It could not warrant the grant of anticipatory bail. It was additionally noticed that the HC had fallen into an error in granting anticipatory bail.

Dismissing the plea after taking into account the information and circumstances of the matter and the regulation laid down by the SC in Samarth Kumar’s case, Justice Bahl asserted the petitioner couldn’t make out a “sturdy prima facie case” to indicate mala fide on behalf of both the police or the co-accused, who named him as the principle particular person directing the availability

of poppy husk.

Itemizing 4 different circumstances disentitling the petitioner to grant of anticipatory bail, Justice Bahl — amongst different issues — added business amount was recovered within the matter. As such, the bar beneath Part 37 of NDPS Act, would apply.





Supply hyperlink

Leave comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *.

%d bloggers like this: