Inderjit Singh v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-25585-2017 -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-25585-2017 Date of Decision: September 27, 2017 Inderjit Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR MITTAL 1.
To be referred to the Reporters or not?
Yes/No 2.
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.
3.
Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......
Present:
Mr.Amit Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Manjri Nehru Kaul, Addl.AG, Punjab.
........
SURYA KANT, J.
Status report by way of affidavit of Rajwinder Singh, PPS Deputy Superintendent of Police, Samana, District Patiala, filed by learned State counsel is taken on record.
[2] Prayer in this application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is to grant regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.92, dated 03.06.2014 under Sections 21, 22, 25, 25A, 27, 27A, 29, 61, 85 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity,'the NDPS Act') read with Sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Pasiana, District Patiala.
[3] The FIR was registered on the basis of secret information received by the police patrolling party alleging inter alia that one Varinder Singh Sandhu, who has a pharmaceutical factory at Baddi, Himachal Pradesh, alongwith his associates was involved in manufacturing and sale Meenu 2017.10.10 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh and supply of intoxicant capsules like pseudo ephedrine carmine etc., due to
CRM-M-25585-2017 -2which young generation are being spoiled. A raid was conducted at Hotel Royal Castles, Bhiwanigarh Road, Patiala and some of the members of the gang were arrested.
[4] The petitioner's name also surfaced as he was driver of the vehicle being used for the supply of illicit drugs. The petitioner was arrested on 14.06.2014 and is in custody since then. It is averred that owing to the period already spent by the petitioner in custody more so when trial would take long time to conclude, the petitioner deserves the concession of bail. [5] We would have considered petitioner's above mentioned plea but for the fact that he is involved in yet another case, i.e. FIR No.01 dated 01.01.2010 under Sections 21, 22, 23, 29, 61, 85 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station SSOC, Amritsar, there is every likelihood of his misusing the concession of bail. In any case rigours of Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act surely dissuade this Court from granting concession of bail to the petitioner. [6] Dismissed.
[7] However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody from the last more than three years, learned Special Judge is directed to expedite the trial and make an endeavour to conclude the same within six months.
( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE September 27, 2017 ( SUDHIR MITTAL ) meenuss JUDGE 1.
Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No 2.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No Meenu 2017.10.10 11:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh