“Landmark Ruling: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs 10,000 Relief in Unjustified Narcotics Case FIR”

Pushpinder Kumar alias Tinku Versus State of Punjab

In a recent legal development, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the matter of Pushpinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, has ruled in favor of the petitioner by directing the Punjab State Police to provide a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. The case revolves around an unjustified First Information Report (FIR) filed against Pushpinder Kumar in connection with a narcotics-related incident.

Addressing a long-standing concern about innocent individuals being implicated in drug-related cases, the Punjab & Haryana High Court emphasized the significance of evidence-based actions. The Court’s verdict underlines that the FIR was lodged against Pushpinder Kumar without a proper basis, leading to unwarranted harassment and financial strain on the petitioner.

Justice Rajbir Sehrawat, presiding over the case, observed the distress and expenses borne by the petitioner due to the premature filing of the FIR. The Court’s stance was clear: since the FIR lacked a substantial foundation, the individual responsible for initiating the baseless FIR was directed to compensate Pushpinder Kumar with an amount of Rs. 10,000.

The legal proceedings were set in motion when Pushpinder Kumar, represented by attorney Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, sought anticipatory bail in response to the FIR lodged against him by the State of Punjab. Rehan argued before Justice Sehrawat’s bench, asserting the fabricated and malicious nature of the charges. He contended that the FIR had been filed at the instigation of Sub Inspector Surinder Kumar, without any factual basis or evidence against the petitioner.

The case revolved around violations of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPs) Act of 1985. The petitioner faced allegations under Sections 15, 18, 20, 21, and 22, registered at City Hoshiarpur Police Station.

1. While the State Counsel cited various allegations against Pushpinder Kumar, claiming his involvement in illegal drug trading, Rehan countered these claims, highlighting their baseless nature and malicious intent. Rehan emphasized that the charges were reminiscent of past cases and lacked substantial proof.
2. The State’s attorney presented a covert investigation as evidence of the petitioner’s narcotics involvement. However, when the police visited the petitioner’s residence, it was found locked, leading to speculations of his involvement. Nevertheless, Justice Sehrawat deemed this insufficient to sustain the prosecution’s case and granted anticipatory bail to the petitioner, while also emphasizing that the case was not dismissed.

Justice Sehrawat asserted that no substantial evidence was found either from the petitioner or at his residence. Consequently, the Court concluded that the prosecution’s case lacked merit, despite the police’s claims.

The Court’s final ruling entailed the petitioner’s cooperation with investigators as required and adherence to the bail conditions. Justice Sehrawat’s significant directive was to compensate Pushpinder Kumar with Rs. 10,000 due to the baseless nature of the FIR, causing undue distress and expenses.

The Court mandated that the compensation be paid within four weeks and directed the Hoshiarpur Senior Superintendent of Police to ensure compliance with the order. This verdict sets a precedent for evidence-based actions and emphasizes the responsibility of law enforcement to ensure fairness and justice in criminal proceedings.