Mukesh Kumar v. State Of Punjab

-1231 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 22.08.2024 Mukesh Kumar ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Deepak Kumar Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

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

This is the petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.369 dated 19.12.2023 under Sections 22, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station City Rajpura District Patiala.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case for being allegedly found in possession of 1450 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even though it was stated to be a case of chance recovery, however, there had been non-compliance of all the mandatory provisions of NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that after the

-2charges were framed on 01.04.2024, the trial had not proceeded further as none of the 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. Hence, the petitioner deserves to be extended the concession of bail.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has brought to the notice of this Court, on instructions, that the petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents; this is not the first time that he has been involved in a case under the NDPS Act. In fact, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner was on bail in the three other cases registered under the NDPS Act when he was apprehended at the spot and a huge recovery of 1450 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride (commercial quantity) affected from the boot of his scooter in the instant case. Learned State counsel has still further submitted that the trial has been proceeding at a reasonable good pace after the petitioner was apprehended on 19.12.2023; challan was presented soon thereafter on 16.02.2024 and charges framed on 01.04.2024.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5.

Prima facie, the petitioner does come across as a habitual offender; the petitioner seemingly misused the concession of bail granted to him in the other criminal cases registered against him.

-36.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, and the alleged recovery affected from the petitioner, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition stands 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.

22.08.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No