Charanjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 16.01.2023 CHARANJIT SINGH ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Rajinder Singh Bhatta, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Ishma Randhawa, Additional AG Punjab.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this second petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.113 dated 09.09.2019, registered at Police Station Basti Bawa Khel, District Jalandhar, under Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act, 1985.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case; that the petitioner was arrested after a month from registration of the FIR; that on the basis of his own disclosure statement, one kilogram Heroin was recovered; that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.10.2019 and that one of co-accused, namely, Karnbir Singh @ Karambir Singh has since been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court, vide order dated 17.11.2021. He further submits that as far as FIR No.100 dated 24.08.2020, under Sections 21 and 29 NDPS Act, registered against the

-2petitioner, is concerned, he along with co-accused, namely, Sajan was found innocent by the Judge, Special Court, Ferozepur. He further submits that though the challan was presented way back on 03.11.2020, yet no prosecution witness has been examined, till date. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments dated 22.08.2022 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
  

                 !  "##$%&'%''      %(%''%'%

) *

+ , ) -  

   "'.#/'%'% Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. She, however, submits that petitioner and his father are habitual offenders and that commercial quantity of Heroin was recovered from the petitioner and that too on his own disclosure statement.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the recovery effected in the present case is a commercial quantity, yet the fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.10.2019. In FIR No.100, the petitioner was found innocent. Co-accused has already been enlarged on bail. Challan was presented on 03.11.2020 but none of the prosecution witness has been examined, so far. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

-3-   0+  


  

 0!  1& 2
  

          

             

           

        

     

     

     

 

                

        

        

    



         !  "    "            

    

   #      $ %        





 

  & ) *

+0!  0+ 

4   1& 2'    "               (   

)*+,*-*

  .    

/0 2+3+ ,*-4 "

 

        

      5)4#         1 -52 ,*-3



 "#             ,-6      1

  7    # 

 

 8 -439 8 

 

       





  

 

52

         





      "       

    ,-*+,*-3  

  



:

      -* 

   

        

    

         

-4-
     

       





     

     

 

              
                ;

$%  

      / ,         

             17#8 1  <   

       $%  "         

   

          

   

           
           



  & In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 16.01.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No