Parwinder Singh @ Vicky v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-40345-2020 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40345-2020 (O&M)

Reserved on: 08.02.2022

Pronounced on: 22.02.2022 Parwinder Singh @ Vicky

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Present:

Mr. Karnail Singh Ahhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Sitta, AAG, Punjab.

**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

FIR No.

Dated Police Station Sections 01.10.2019 Jandiala, 302, 332, 333, 353, 186, 379-B(2), Amritsar Rural 120B, 148 & 149 IPC and Section 25/27 of Arms Act and Sections 21/29/61/85 of NDPS Act 1.

The petitioner, incarcerating upon his arrest has come up before this Court seeking bail under Section 439 CrPC, for violating provisions of IPC and NDPS Act. 2.

In paragraph 20 of the petition, it is declared that the accused has no criminal history.

3.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 4.

The contention on behalf of the State is that offence is very grave, allegations are serious, and there is ample evidence connecting the petitioner with the crime. Furthermore, the petitioner has criminal antecedents, and bail encourages habitual offenders. While opposing the bail, another contention on behalf of the State is that drug menace is rapidly increasing.

REASONING:

  

  



    


      !    " #$  ! "

 ! $ %

     !! " &   ! $  '   &       % $ ' %      !



"! $'&   $   !           ANJU RANI 2022.02.22 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-40345-2020 (O&M) $&( ! $ '   ! &    !! "&  !!

" !$"    % "

" 

!

 " $$ % " )     % &    $%

   "  "  !! "   !*       !    ! $  '   % !    $   !+

$  " !   &    +  "   ),   % !  "  & "&  % !  $ "  !$    % , !    !$"

"-$  !       "

% ""   ! $ '

 !"   !   %$' $"   '"   ! $ ' $     %""$   6.

A perusal of the petition does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior.

7.

The quantity of contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner as per State's contention, falls in the category of commercial quantity. The burden is on the petitioner to satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

8.

The stand that the accused is in custody for sufficient time is also not a legal ground to overcome the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. 9.

The grounds taken in the bail petition do not shift the burden placed by the legislature on the accused under S. 37 of the NDPS Act.The petitioner has not stated anything to discharge the burden put by the rigours of S. 37 of the NDPS Act. Thus, the petitioner has failed to make out a case for bail at this stage. 10.

Regarding the offence under Section 302 IPC, in the incident, a police official received a bullet injury in his neck due to which he succumbed. Looking at the gravity of allegations, the accused are not entitled to bail during the trial. Given this, the petitioner also fails to make out a case for bail.

11. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. Petition dismissed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE February 22, 2022 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes Whether reportable:

No.

ANJU RANI 2022.02.22 15:10 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document HIGH COURT CHANDIGARH