Narender @ Motu v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-23009-2020 Date of Decision : 05.04.2021 Narender @ Motu .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA Present :

Ms. Sunita Gupta, Advocate for Mr. Mohammad Arshad, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. Anmol Malik, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana assisted by ASI Pawan Kumar for the Respondent/State.

SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) The instant Petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Regular Bail on behalf of the Petitioner in case FIR No.152, dated 17.05.2019, registered under Sections 18/61/85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Narnaud, District Hisar. 2.

The Petitioner has by now remained in detention for more than 01 year and 10 months since 24.05.2019.

3.

Admittedly, the recovery effected from the Petitioner was of opium weighing 500 grams, which is well below the commercial quantity. Co-accused Rampal @ Satyawan has already been granted bail by the Ld. Sessions Judge, Hisar on 31.05.2019 as can be seen from Annexure P-3. 4.

Ld. State Counsel has nevertheless opposed bail prayer of the DEEPAK KUMAR 2021.04.05 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-23009-2020 -2Petitioner by drawing attention of the Court to the history of his previous convictions in various cases involving at the particular time not only for offences under the NDPS Act, but also the heinous offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.

5.

Be that as it may, it is undeniable that when apprehended the Petitioner was not an absconder and appears to have secured his release by way of suspension of his sentence, considering the custody period already undergone by him in the concerned cases.

6.

The rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 are not applicable in the present case since the alleged recovery was of lesser quantity than the commercial limit.

7.

Trial in the case is likely to take its own substantial time since it transpires that so far not even the first prosecution witness has been examined and the matter is stated to be fixed for that purpose on the 6th of July, 2021.

8.

In the circumstances, further detention of the Petitioner at this stage is not called for. As such, he is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
  

 April 05, 2021 (SUDIP AHLUWALIA) Dpr JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR 2021.04.05 17:19 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document