Taranpreet Singh @ Tarana @ Titli v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:- 2.12.2022 Taranpreet Singh @ Tarana @ Titli

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Guninder Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab assisted by SI Barjinder Singh.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J .

1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No. 118 dated 18.6.2021 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sadar Khanna, District Ludhiana.

2. As per the case of prosecution, on 18.6.2021 when a police party was present at T-Point Korri, G.T. Road for the purpose of patrolling and checking, then at about 10 p.m., a young man was noticed coming from village Korri, who was limping and was carrying a white coloured envelope in his left hand. The said person, upon seeing the police party, sat down on the pretext of urinating and dropped the white coloured envelope. He was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and upon being asked, disclosed his name as Beeru Singh. The envelope thrown by the said person was found to contain 810 narcotic pills which later, upon chemical analysis, were found to

contain 'Tramadol'. The total weight of the recovered tablets was found to be 324.81 grams. It is further the case of prosecution that the aforesaid Beeru Singh, during interrogation, disclosed the name of the petitioner to be the supplier.

3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that he was never ever found at the spot and nor any recovery of contraband was effected from him and has been nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement made by co-accused Beeru Singh which in the absence of any other connecting evidence, will not carry any evidentiary value. The learned counsel has further submitted that since the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 5 months and 22 days, he deserves the concession of bail.

4. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel submitted that since Beeru Singh from whom contraband was recovered and who was caught at the spot has categorically named the petitioner to be the supplier, the complicity of the petitioner cannot be doubted, particularly in view of his antecedents. The learned State counsel has pointed out that the petitioner happens to be involved in six other cases including a case registered for offence under the NDPS Act and as such, it is apparent that he is a habitual offender and there is every likelihood that in case granted bail, he will indulge in similar offences again.

5. This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6. It is no doubt correct that no contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who has been nominated on the basis of a disclosure statement made by coaccused. However, the antecedents of the petitioner who stands involved in

six other cases including a case registered for offence under NDPS Act lends credibility to the case of the prosecution.

7. Keeping in view the chequered record of the petitioner it cannot be said that the petitioner, in case granted bail, will not indulge in similar offences again. In these circumstances, this Court does not find any ground for grant of bail to the petitioner.

8. The petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed. 2.12.2022 (Gurvinder Singh Gill) kamal Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No