Gurjant Singh Alias Janta And ANR v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH 212/2 2024:PHHC:014917 CRM-M-30323-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: January 24th, 2024 Gurjant Singh alias Janta and another .....Petitioners

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate for applicant-petitioner No.1.

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) Petitioners are seeking the concession of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case FIR No.187 dated 14.09.2020 registered under Sections 22 (C), 15 and 25 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda. In the alternative, a prayer has been made for extending the concession of interim bail to the petitioner on medical grounds. 2.

Learned State counsel has filed a short reply by way of affidavit of Superintendent, Central Jail, Bathinda. Learned State counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure R-1, which is the medical status report given by the Medical Officer, Central Jail, Bathinda. As per the medical status report, petitioner No.1 had been admitted at AIIMS, Bathinda, however, he was discharged on 13.12.2023. He was clinically stable and was being taken for his follow-ups to both AIIMS, Bathinda and GGSMCH, Faridkot. 3.

In the circumstances, no ground is made out to extend the concession of interim bail on medical grounds. PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.02.05 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh

CRM-M-30323-2021 (O&M) -24.

Learned State counsel, on instructions, has informed the Court that the trial is at the stage of final arguments and the case is fixed before the trial Court for today itself. 5.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 22.03.2023, wherein similar instructions had been received by the learned State counsel. It has been submitted that even though the prosecution evidence stood concluded more than a year back, the trial had not concluded and hence, the petitioner be enlarged on bail.

6.

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

7.

The petitioner has been in custody since 14.09.2020. As not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner also, prosecution evidence stands concluded.

8.

In the circumstances, keeping in mind the long custody period of the petitioner and the prosecution evidence having admittedly concluded almost a year back, the trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably on or before 28.02.2024. 9.

The instant petition stands dismissed.

January 24th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2024.02.05 19:35 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document.

Chandigarh