Rajesh Kumar v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-6862-2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-6862-2022 Date of Decision: 23rd February, 2022 Rajesh Kumar

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Geeta Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (Oral) 1.

Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court is convened through video conference.

2.

This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is filed seeking regular bail in FIR No. 668, dated 4th December, 2021, under Sections 21C and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station City Kaithal, District Kaithal. 3.

As per the case set up, on 3rd December, 2021, during patrolling police checked TVS Scooty; the riders were Vikram @ Vicky and Rajesh Kumar (petitioner) and on search, from their conscious possession, 655 grams and 160 grams of Heroin respectively was recovered. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of false implication, the recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner is of a non-commercial quantity, he is not involved in any other PRASHANT KAPOOR 2022.02.23 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-6862-2022 case, no further recovery is to be made, the FSL report has not yet been received and the petitioner is in custody since 4th December, 2021. 5.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, opposes the prayer and submits that the total recovery from the two accused is of commercial quantity. She fairly submits that FSL report is still awaited. 6.

Without commenting upon merits of the case, considering that the recovery from the conscious possession of the petitioner was of noncommercial quantity, he has no criminal antecedents, conclusion of investigation and trial is likely to take time, the petitioner is granted bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

The petition is allowed.

8.

It is clarified that observations made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 9.

Needless to say that in case there is a misuse of the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to avail the remedies in accordance with law.

(AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 23rd February, 2022 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO PRASHANT KAPOOR 2022.02.23 15:30 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document