Twinkle Arora @ Tishu v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-17409-2023 -12023:PHHC:055441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-17409-2023 Decided on : 20.04.2023 Twinkle Arora @ Tishu ...... Petitioner

Versus

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

Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ramdeep Pratap Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

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

Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.136 dated 16.08.2021 for the offences under Sections 22/61/85 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station STF District SAS Nagar.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.08.2021 for being found in possession of 5500 tablets of Clovidel 100-Sr and 3000 tablets of Etezola 0.5 mg. Learned counsel further submits that after the charges were framed on 10.02.2022, only 06 out of 11 prosecution witnesses have been examined, hence trial shall take considerable time to conclude. Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case much less of similar nature, which points to his false implication in the case in hand.

SONIA BURA 2023.04.20 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-17409-2023 -22023:PHHC:055441 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel opposite submits that a huge recovery falling under commercial quantity was effected from the petitioner and that too on the basis of secret information received by the police party wherein petitioner had been specifically named. Learned counsel further submits that the trial shall not take much time to conclude as only five prosecution witnesses remain to be examined.

4.

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

5.

In the light of facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove coupled with the fact that the trial is nearing conclusion, this Court does not deem it appropriate to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner, who was allegedly found in possession of huge recovery, which no doubt fall under the commercial quanity. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 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. (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE 20.04.2023 sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No SONIA BURA 2023.04.20 15:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document