High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/8982/2020dismissed

Uday Singh v. State Of Punjab

2020-11-09Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal2 pages

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No. M- 8982 of 2020 Date of Decision: 09.11.2020 Uday Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Davender Arya, Advocate for Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Suveer Sheokand, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

This is second petition for grant of regular bail pending trial in a criminal case arising from FIR No. 67, dated 20.07.2019, registered under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1985 Act"), at Police Station STF Phase-4, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 18.11.2019. As per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was apprehended with 700 ampules of Buprenorphine and 250 ampules of Phenergan and both contained prohibited substances. Still further, from reading of para 13 of the petition, it is apparent that two more FIRs are pending against the petitioner, details whereof, are as under:- a) FIR No. 186 dated 03.07.2019, registered under DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.11.10 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Criminal Misc. No. M- 8982 of 2020 Section 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Bhawanigarh, Sangrur, Punjab.

b) FIR No. 86 dated 18.07.2019, registered under Section 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Chhajli, Sangrur, Punjab.

The alleged recovery from the petitioner falls in commercial quantity. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that due to the spread of COVID-19 pandemic and consequent restricted functioning of the Courts, the trial of the case has not any progress. This Court has considered the submissions. The petitioner is involved in as many as three cases, as per the information supplied by learned counsel for the petitioner. The alleged recovery from the petitioner is also of huge quantity.

In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to make efforts for the expeditious disposal of the case.

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge November 09, 2020 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.11.10 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document