Hawinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1234 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 04.11.2024 Harwinder Singh ...... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present : Mr. Aakashdeep S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

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

This is the third petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.280 dated 04.11.2022 under Sections 22, 22(c), 27, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station STF, Phase 4 District SAS Nagar (Mohali).

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case for allegedly being found in possession of 10,020 tablets of Tramadol. It has been contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner's false implication in the present case is evident from the fact that he has no previous criminal antecedents much less having ever been involved in a case under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel has further

-2submitted that since only 7 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 15 cited, the petitioner be enlarged on bail as possibility of the trial concluding in the near future seems unlikely. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner i.e. of he having been arrested on 04.11.2022, however, it has been submitted by the learned State counsel, on instructions, that a specific secret information was received qua the involvement of the petitioner in drug trafficking; following a tip off, the petitioner was intercepted and huge recovery of 10,020 tablets of Tramadol (weighing approximately 1 kg), which is much beyond the minimum classified as commercial under the Act, was then affected from the petitioner and that too after due compliance of all the mandatory provisions of the Act.

Learned State counsel has, on instructions, disputed the stage of trial and submitted that as on date, seven prosecution witnesses stand examined while two have been given up; 8 remain to be examined and the next date of hearing fixed before the Trial Court is 10.11.2024 when in all the likelihood all the remaining witnesses would be examined. Hence, there is every likelihood that the trial would conclude in the near future. 4.

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

5.

The petitioner was allegedly apprehended with huge contraband i.e. 10,020 tables of tramadol, which has been classified as

-3commercial under the Act. The trial has been proceeding at a considerably good pace as only eight prosecution witnesses remain to be examined, who in all likelihood would be examined in the near future.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove coupled with the fact that huge recovery has allegedly been affected from the petitioner, and that too following a secret information, 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.

04.11.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No