High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/15734/2019dismissed

Paramjit Singh @ Pamma v. State Of Punjab

2019-05-09Mr. Justice Ramendra Jain2 pages

-1CRM-M-15734 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-15734 of 2019 Date of decision: 09.05.2019 Paramjit Singh @ Pamma ......Petitioner versus The State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN Present: - Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate, for Mr. L.S. Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

RAMENDRA JAIN, J. (ORAL) Through instant petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. prayer has been made for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case arising from FIR No.103 dated 13.07.2016 registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Goraya, District Jalandhar.

According to the prosecution, on 13.07.2016 petitioner was apprehended with 200 grams of intoxicant powder/prohibited drug. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner has falsely been implicated by keeping him in illegal custody of two days. Conclusion of trial may take sufficient long time. No useful purpose would be achieved by detaining the petitioner any more in jail. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the order of this Court dated 10.07.2018 passed in CRM-M-10379 of 2018 (Harjit Singh v. State of Punjab).

RAVINDER SINGH 2019.05.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

-2CRM-M-15734 of 2019 On the other hand, learned State counsel submitting affidavit of Davinder Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Phillaur, Jalandhar, contends that petitioner is facing trial in 22 more cases, out of which in many cases he has been convicted or is facing trial and has been acquitted only in one case. Petitioner is a hardcore criminal and, therefore, does not deserve concession of bail.

Heard.

Considering the fact that petitioner is a hardcore criminal and is involved in 22 more cases, this Court is not inclined to grant him regular bail.

Facts and circumstances of the above order relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner are different from the facts of present case. Therefore, no benefit of the same can be given to the petitioner. Dismissed.

(Ramendra Jain) May 09, 2019 Judge R.S.

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RAVINDER SINGH 2019.05.10 16:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document