Crl. Misc. No. M- 34271 of 2008 Date of Decision: February 17 v. Assistant Commissioner (A.S.), Customs (Prevention), Commissionerate, Amritsar
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
keeping view the above mentioned facts this petition is allowed
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 439
- Narcotic Drugs and Phsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ss. 23, 29, 30
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 411, 414
- Arms Act, 1959 s. 25
- Customs Act, 1962 s. 135
- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 s. 18
- Official Secret Act s. 3
Judgment
Mr. Vikram K. Chaudhari, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.D.D.Sharma, Advocate, for the respondent. *** SABINA, J. Satnam Singh-petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of regular bail in a complaint case titled as “Assistant Commissioner (A.S.)Customs (Prevention) Commissionerate, Amritsar vs. Kuldeep Singh and others” under Section 23, 29 & 30 of the Narcotic Drugs and Phsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 read with Section 489-A, 489-B & 489-C of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 and Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Amritsar. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Crl. Misc. No. M- 34271 of 2008 -2- petitioner was in custody since 23.12.2007. Earlier, FIR No. 302 dated
23.12.2007 under Sections 411, 414 of the Indian Penal Code, 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, Sections 18 of the NDPS Act and Section 3 of the Official Secret Act were registered at Police Station Patti. Vide order dated
18.2.2008 (Annexure P-2), Additional Sessions Judge, Tarn Taran had granted regular bail to the petitioner. Petitioner was apprehended on
23.12.2007 and since then he is in police custody. Petitioner and his co- accused were alleged to have made confession that they had smuggled more than 10 kgs. of heroin, 10 lakhs fake currency notes, 05 mousers and 30 live cartridges However, heroin and fake currency notes were not recovered from the petitioner or his co-accused. Thereafter, the present complaint was filed on the same allegation regarding which petitioner was allowed bail in FIR, mentioned above. Learned counsel for respondent has opposed the bail application on the ground that offence committed by the petitioner is serious in nature. Vide order dated 18.2.2008 (Annexure P-2), petitioner and his co accused- Kuldeep Singh were allowed bail in FIR No. 302 dated
Operative part
23.12.2007. Co-accused -Manoj Kumar @ Lovely has been allowed regular bail by this Court vide order dated 26.5.2008 (Annexure P-3) in the complaint, in question. Petitioner is in custody since 23.12.2007. No recovery of heroin or fake currency notes were effected from the petitioner or his co- accused. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and keeping view the above mentioned facts this petition is allowed. Petitioner be admitted to bail subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Crl. Misc. No. M- 34271 of 2008 -3- Magistrate, Amritsar. Petitioner shall deposit his passport and other travel documents in the Court and shall not leave the country without prior permission of the Court. February 17, 2009 PARAMJIT (SABINA) JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: keeping view the above mentioned facts this petition is allowed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 439; Narcotic Drugs and Phsychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — ss. 23, 29, 30; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 411, 414; Arms Act, 1959 — s. 25; Customs Act, 1962 — s. 135; Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 — s. 18.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Punjab & Haryana High Court, on 17 Feb 2009. The bench was SABINA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.