← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8625/2024dismissed

Lovepreet Singh Alias Bhola v. State Of Punjab

2025-04-02Mr. Justice Sanjiv Berry3 pages

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 02.04.2025 LOVEPREET SINGH ALIAS BHOLA ....Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present :

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankit Grewal, DAG Punjab.

***** SANJIV BERRY, J. (ORAL) 1.

Short reply  



   

 

Deputy Superintendent of Police   

          !      "  #        #        2.

The instant petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 439 CrPC for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the following case :- FIR No.

Dated Sections Police Station 18.10.2022 22(B), 22(C) of the NDPS Act Nihal Singh Wala, District Moga no. 2), Mo 3.

It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She submits that the petitioner has no other criminal antecedents and the

-2alleged recovery has been planted upon the petitioner. She further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 28.10.2022 and after the completion of investigation, challan has been presented in Court and the conclusion of trial will take sufficient long time. Thus prays for grant of concession of bail to the petitioner.

4.

Per contra, learned State counsel while referring to the short reply filed by the State has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner along with his co-accused were apprehended by the police and from their possession commercial quantity of contraband was recovered. Thus the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. 5.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6.

After considering the rival contentions and perusing the record, it transpires that on 18.10.2022, the police party apprehended two men present in a vacant plot, who were counting strips of intoxicant tablets. Upon enquiry they disclosed their names as Ramandeep Singh and Lovepreet Singh (petitioner herein). Thereafter, search was conducted and 30 strips of Cobedol-100 SR mg, each strip containing 10 tablets, i.e. 300 tablets and 20 loose intoxicant tablets were recovered. Accordingly, the petitioner along with co-accused Ramandeep Singh were arrested. As per the FSL report, 300 tablets were containing Tramadol Hydrochloride Salt, having total weight 114.9 grams, which though falls within the category of noncommercial quantity, however, the 20 loose tablets were containing Etizolam salt having 2.76 grams weight, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. The petitioner was apprehended by the police in

-3conscious possession of commercial quantity, thus, hit by the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

7.

In these circumstances, considering the serious nature and gravity of offence involved and the fact that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of bail at this stage. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

8.

Any observation made above shall not be construed as opinion of this Court on the merits of the case.

(SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 02.04.2025 S.Sharma(syr) i) Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No ii) Whether reportable?

Yes/No