Sarabjit Singh Alias Sarbjeet Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 09.08.2024 Sarabjit Singh @ Sarbjeet Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Present :

Mr.Harpreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.246 dated 19.11.2023 under Sections 21, 29, 61 and 85 NDPS Act registered at Police Station Gharinda, Amritsar. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the admitted case of the prosecution, no recovery of any contraband was affected from the petitioner. While drawing the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR in question, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner was just shown to be standing next to co-accused Simranjit Singh along with one other person when the police party apprehended them on suspicion; thereafter a recovery of 365 grams of heroin was allegedly affected not from the petitioner but from the right pocket of the trouser of co-accused Simranjit Singh. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case coupled with the fact that even after he was arrested by the police on 19.11.2023, no recovery of any contraband was affected either from his conscious possession or from any place pursuant to his disclosure

-2statement. It has also been submitted that charges have been framed in the present case, however, none of the prosecution witnesses out of 12 cited has been examined so far. Hence, there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has not disputed that the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case; it has also not been disputed that the alleged recovery of 365 grams of heroin was affected from co-accused Simranjit Singh and no recovery of any contraband was affected from the petitioner. 4.

On a pointed query put to the learned State counsel qua the stage of trial, he has submitted that the charges have been framed, however, none of the prosecution witnesses out of 12 cited has been examined.

5.

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

6.

As not disputed by learned State counsel, none of the prosecution witnesses has been examined so far, hence, there is no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future. Concededly, the petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case much less under the NDPS Act. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.

7.

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 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.

-38.

Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

09.08.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No