The Punjab and Haryana High Court has sought an evidence from the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, Haryana as to how he entertained and determined a plea for normal bail of an accused in a case registered beneath the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS). When the same petition is pending earlier than the High Court.
A bench of Justice HS Madan, PS Ding, was listening to the common bail plea of ​​G Hemvati, an accused in a case beneath part 21(c) of the NDPS Act registered at Sirsa. The High Court has rejected the bail software of the accused.
As per the HC order, an software for depart to withdraw the primary petition for normal bail was moved by the accused as the appliance was being taken up on July 6. The HC Bench stated within the order that, the explanation for withdrawing the primary petition is that the petitioner has been granted common bail by the Sessions Judge Sirsa on the order of June 28.
Justice Madan noticed, “It could be very unusual that the petitioner was availing remedy in two courts concurrently earlier than this Court in addition to earlier than the discovered Sessions Judge at Sirsa. A perusal of Order Annex A1 exhibits that Petition 25 was filed on June 28 and the judgment was pronounced on June 28, whereas the current petition was filed on May 6. Let us search an evidence from the discovered Sessions Judge, Sirsa as to how was made when the same petition was earlier than this courtroom. pending, he considers and decides the petition for normal bail.
Justice Madan additional stated: “He (Sessions Judge, Sirsa) is to report further whether the pendency of the petition before this court was brought to his notice by Naveen Kumar, the Public Prosecutor representing the State or by the police officer concerned. “
The HC ordered that the Sessions Judge, Sirsa, additional clarify how he launched the accused on bail with out contemplating the bar of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. It directed Karan Garg, AAG, Haryana to refer the matter to Director Prosecution, Panchkula (Haryana) in addition to DGP, Haryana, Chandigarh, in order that vital motion might be taken in opposition to the officer at fault.
.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
