Baljit Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 22.05.2024 Baljit Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) 1.

This is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.67 dated 08.04.2022 under Sections 21(c) of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Special Task Force (STF Wing), Lambi District SAS Nagar, Mohali. 2.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case; he has been in custody since 08.04.2022, for allegedly travelling in a car in which 600 grams of heroin was found. It has been submitted that the allegations levelled are totally false; after the charges were framed on 14.09.2022, only four prosecution witnesses have been examined, and hence, he cannot be made to languish in custody for

-2an indefinite period.

3.

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite. Learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner was apprehended on suspicion while he was driving his own car; on being stopped, recovery of 600 grams of heroin was affected from near the gearbox of the car, after due compliance of all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents, which is evident from a bare perusal of the custody certificate, which has been placed on record today. While drawing the attention of this Court to the custody certificate, it has been submitted that the petitioner is involved in four other criminal cases, all under the NDPS Act. It has still further been submitted that the charges were framed on 14.09.

2022, and thereafter four prosecution witnesses out of the 26 had been examined, and the delay in the conclusion of the trial had also been on account of the involvement of the petitioner in other cases under the NDPS Act for which he was being taken on production warrants to various Courts.

4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.

5.

Prima facie the petitioner comes across as a habitual offender; the present case was registered against him while he was on bail in the other cases registered under the NDPS Act. The alleged

-3recovery affected from the petitioner is huge and has been classified as commercial under the NDPS Act for which he does not deserve to be extended the concession of bail.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed. 7.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

22.05.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No