Ruldu Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-15050-2022 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15050-2022 Date of Decision: 05.12.2022 Ruldu Singh ..........................................Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab..................................... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL ...

Present:

Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

...

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) The petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No. 98 dated 19.08.2020 under Sections 22, 29 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Nandgarh, District Bathinda. Learned counsel submits that despite the petitioner having been arrested on 19.08.2020 and the charges having been framed on 15.12.2021, the trial has not made much headway and only 01 out of the 13 prosecution witnesses cited, has been examined so far. He, thus, prays that the petitioner be extended the concession of bail as there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future coupled with the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case much less under the NDPS Act.

Per contra, the learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the counsel opposite. Learned counsel, on instructions, submits that it was a case of chance recovery and that a huge recovery of 17,500 RUPINDER KAUR 2022.12.07 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15050-2022 [ 2 ] tablets of Tramadol was effected from the petitioner. Learned State counsel further submits that no doubt the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case, however, since the recovery effected from him is huge and much beyond the minimum prescribed under the commercial quantity he be declined the concession of regular bail. Learned counsel has further submitted that since the next date of hearing before the trial court is 15.12.2022 when a few more witnesses are likely to be examined, the trial shall not take much time to conclude.

Heard the learned counsel and perused the relevant material on record.

The petitioner was allegedly apprehended with 17,500 tables of Tramadol which falls within the commercial quantity, this court is therefore not inclined to extend the concession of bail to him. The petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

At this stage, a request has been made by the learned counsel for the petitoiner that the trial court be directed to expedite the trial in the wake of the long incarceration of the petitioner. The trial court shall make earnest efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within six months from today. ( MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 05.12.2022 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No RUPINDER KAUR 2022.12.07 10:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document