High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/2617/2021allowed

Gurdit Singh Alias Geetu v. State Of Punjab

2021-03-19Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill3 pages

-1In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of Decision: 19.3.2021 Gurdit Singh @ Geetu ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. H.S.Multani, AAG, Punjab.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL , J. (ORAL) Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. CRM-7282-2021 This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for placing on record Annexures P-8 to P-13.

The application is allowed as prayed for. Annexures P-8 to P-13 are taken on record.

CRM-M-2617-2021 The petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 193 dated 22.11.2019 under Sections 15, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 ('Act' for short) registered at Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar.

Custody certificate by way of affidavit of Superintendent, Central Jail, Kapurthala has been filed through e-mail. Copy of the same is taken on record.

-2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the petitioner was apprehended at the spot nor any recovery has been effected from him. He further submits that mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the Act have not been complied with. He has drawn the attention of this Court towards the non-consent memo (Annexure P-8) to submit that rather the offer has been made to the petitioner in a restricted manner to get his search effected from some Gazetted Officer of Punjab Government or some Magistrate. Learned counsel further submits that since in another case, there was no order of proclamation and the Hon'ble Apex Court took suo motto cognizance on 15.11.2019, the present FIR was registered. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-16513-2020 titled Savinder Singh versus State of Punjab, decided on 10.7.

2020. On the other hand, the learned State counsel, while opposing the present petition, submits that compliance of Section 50 of the Act has been made by the investigating agency. He further submits that in the present case challan has been presented and the next date for framing of charge is fixed for 09.4.2021.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It would be a debatable issue as to whether the offer extended to the petitioner is a valid one in terms of Section 50 of the Act or not and whether Section 50 of the Act is complied with or not. Since as per the custody certificate, the petitioner has been in custody for the last 01 year, 03 months and 20 days and the trial will take time to conclude because of Covid-19 pandemic, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the

-3petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

(HARNARESH SINGH GILL) JUDGE March 19, 2021 Gurpreet Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No