← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/5648/2024allowed

Amritpal Singh @ Amrit v. State Of Punjab

2024-11-28Mrs. Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul3 pages

 1 

                  

           !"# #$%&% '( ))       



!"

#  $   (  *+ ,) , 

- +

% # # #  & ' $( ) '

  # # *($

 ' +,'

!"# ----  

- +.) + .# /  

& 

"  $  under Section 483 of the BNSS/ 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.162 dated 10.08.2023 under Sections 21 and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at P. S. City Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural). 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 10.08.2023 for being allegedly found in possession of 256 grams of Heroin ; the alleged recovered contraband was weighed along with the polythene bag. It has been asserted by the learned counsel that in the circumstances, if the weight of the bag is excluded, the recovered contraband would fall beneath the minimum classified as commercial under the NDPS Act. It has still further been argued by learned counsel that after the petitioner was arrested on 10.08.2023, challan was presented on 30.10.2023 followed by framing of charges on 04.03.2024. However, till date the trial had not concluded and only one prosecution witness out of the 14 cited had been

 2 examined. Learned counsel submits that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, there is no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future and the petitioner, therefore deserves to be enlarged on bail, more so, since he has no previous criminal antecedents.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor has it been disputed that as on date only one witness out of the 14 cited by the prosecution has been examined. Learned State counsel has however on instructions, submits that 4 prosecution witnesses have been given up with only 9 prosecution witnesses remaining to be examined. On a further query, on instructions, learned State counsel has not disputed that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents. 4.

0 (  $   $ ) 

    $  $ 

 (     $# #      1 

 $  2 #.

#

2 $ )

 $ # 2#

'  ) $ $ "3    $  '

3



)   1   "

4 $ $ 5     "

4 $# /     & 3  ) $      # /   

 (  )  $ 6    $

   

4 $ 

"   # # )) $3'       $# /  "

$ $  "    "7  3 "

$    )



/  7+ 3   $# 8 ( '   $ )  

 3 3 "

( $  "

(    "

 $  "

 4

    

 ) # 9# *

$   $$'  )     

"  $  '   $ "

 "

3 

& )) 



 #      

 - +   ))            :    &7  $ % ;

7*

  :    "

% ;

7*