Gurwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-7407-2021 Decided on : 222.02.2021 Gurwinder Singh . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL PRESENT: Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab assisted by ASI Balwinder Singh.

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 121, dated 30.09.2020, under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (later on added Section 31 of the NDPS Act and Section 207 of the M.V. Act), registered at Police Station STF Phase-IV, SAS Nagar Mohali.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that it is a case of false implication, inasmuch as, neither was the petitioner the owner of the vehicle from which the recovery of 267 grams of heroin effected nor is he involved in any other criminal case, much less, under the NDPS Act. It has been contended that the alleged recovery of 267 grams of heroin is marginally above the minimum commercial quantity. Learned counsel has further submitted that the recovery was allegedly effected from a bag, which was lying in the vehicle next to the gear box and hence, it could not be said to have been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 30th September, 2020 and there is no likelihood of the trial concluding anytime in the near future, as only challan has JAWALA RAM 2021.02.22 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-7407-2021 - 2 - been presented till date.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from ASI Balwinder Singh, has submitted that the petitioner was the driver of the car and apprehended along with three other accused, who were travelling with him. He has, however, not been able to controvert the factum of the petitioner not being involved in any other case other than the present one. Heard.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that petitioner has been in custody since 30.09.2020, I deem it a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future, more so, in the prevailing conditions due to the outbreak of COVID-19. The petition as such is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE February 22, 2021 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2021.02.22 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh