Prem Singh v. State Of Punjab
!" "#$%$ &
'
'
( )'* **
!
" # ** +',- ./ $
% !
!
&'(
) ) !
*+,
$$- $.
.- /./.
!
// /(
! " !
/
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody for two years and six months. He submitted that the charges in the present case were framed by the learned trial Court on 18.02.2021 which is almost 21⁄2 years ago but till date only one prosecution witness has been examined completely and another prosecution witness has been examined in part. He submitted that it is a case where the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that was the reason as to why for a long time after the framing of the charges, prosecution witnesses did not turn up for deposition with the result
that the petitioner has to face incarceration for about two years and six months for no fault of his.
3.
0 !
as per the allegations, the petitioner alongwith other co-accused, namely, Nirmal Singh 1 2 were caught with 1950 tablets of Tramadol which although falls within the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act but it is a case where due to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner is entitled for the grant of regular bail and the prayer of the petitioner is not hit by the bar contained under Section 37
.
4.
He
!
3!! , 1 2 45
4
)33''6. /./' $- .& /./'7 53/89 !
!
: 4
) 9 4 /' 9 & 9 9
! 9 / 3 9 9
4
!
) 9 !
!
!! !
9 94
Hon'ble ) * !"&0"-123 - &!$.4'
"&!- . 2-" 2 &4"%!$5 !$ & &0 & !6"- /.//7$.8));$ Mohd Muslim @ Hussain versus State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR (SCC) 1648
)
!
3!! , 124
!
/$
)
+ <
9
!
9 !
9!
!
4
4
4!
4 !
! <
5!
4 49
!
!! , 129
4
4
53/4 4
!
!
'=
!
/$
) + <
9
!
!! !
may be considered for the grant of regular bail.
5.
On the other hand, " # has stated that so far as the custody period of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct and it is also correct that one prosecution witness has been examined completely and another prosecution witness has been examined in part. He however submitted that the status of the trial is the same which was there at the time when the coaccused, namely, , 129 there is no progress in the trial. So far as the parity of the petitioner with the other co-accused, namely, , 12!
!
6.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7.
It is a case where the petitioner has already faced incarceration for about two years and six months and only one prosecution witness has been examined completely and another witness has been examined in part. In the month of April 2023 this Court had granted bail to the other co-accused and now after about three months as per learned counsel for the parties, there is no progress in the trial. The State has not disputed the issue with regard to the parity of the
7
petitioner with the other co-accused, namely, , 129
4 4
4 %
)
9
!
!
) >
the present petition is allowed. %
> 4
! !
? 4
!
) ?" 4 !
! -
< 9 4
5
! 4
!
, **/ 2.8 + @
A B?, @
B?,