Sonu Singh v. State Of Punjab

 




   
  

!" "#$%$ &

'

'

  



   

 ( )'*
 ** 

    

 

 
  
!

" #$   ** +',- ./ % &

 



'() ! "







*+, -%).



-' %- .-%) 

..



 

/0  #

0  .

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody from 04.10.2019 which is almost 3 years and 9 months. 1 "

  /

the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case and he has been falsely implicated in the present case by the police due to political enmity. 1 

"

  

/

 "

-2 -( .-.-/ " (3 ("   .(

/ "" 



    

/ 

!

/ 

         /

       /   1

"

/3 / 

 4" /

 

  /3 

"  " 

   / "

/ 

4"  , //



 

3

4"  

 "    /    



!

"



/ /



 3" 



1 "

 / 

    

(2

/ 3

5   

"



* !"&0"-123 - &!$.4'
"&!- . 2-" 2

&4"%!$5 !$ & &0 & !6"- .-..6%-7
!!8%  

"

Hon'ble


  Mohd Muslim @ Hussain versus State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR (SCC) 1648  

is entitled for the grant of regular bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 3.

On the other hand,  
  
!

"  #$  has submitted that so far as the custody period of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct and the petitioner is in custody for about three years and nine months. He submitted that there had been a recovery of 9 kgs. and 605 grams of Tramadol and 864 grams of Alprazolam from the petitioner which falls in the category of commercial quantity and therefore



 1 

"

  

 

   3









 "
+9/


  4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

The total incarceration of the petitioner is about three years and nine months and the charges were framed about three years and three months ago but only two prosecution witnesses have been examined and that too are those persons who had carried samples from one office to another office but none of the prosecution witnesses who are allegedly part of the police party or any recovery witness, if any, have been examined despite the fact that the learned trial Court had to adjourn the case for about 23 times and was also constrained to issue bailable warrants against the prosecution witnesses twice. 6.

On a query being raised to learned State counsel during the course of arguments as to what was the justification for the prosecution witnesses for not having deposed before the Court for more than three years and three months after the framing of the charges, to which, on instructions from ASI Jaswinder Singh, submitted that there is no justification with regard to the same. &




  
  6 7     



 "

 

 *"

    &



 '-



"



 

:

;'- 
:

6%7"

 

  

 3:

:3   "

  &







      



     3   !

      

 3  "

      /      /  

 1/

 :

"  

 (-)     /   3  







   



" 

  

  "

 & 

"

 "



 

 3 "

 " <

   3 / 3 3 

 

 /

3 



  .% &"

/    



 

 & "    

  /  

     <

"3 



 

   

       

  3  

/  

  .% <  

/  "

   

          

/  

3 !

=

 /    "

 

          

    3     /> > ?

+

"

 602%.$3 72%% $&4"-%2%*! !",
 ".6$/6 7



 3

   3 /  



       "  

3  &



 

"



 

:







                  

   !!



 "   # $ 



   

 

#   

  

   # #   

% !



      

       

          

  

  

!    

      & !



    #

 !

"    



8



      

!





     

   '() *+%

        & !



 !



 

  ,

!

 #%- !   #!  .       

$    !



 

 

  



   

 !    $

      !



  

  

#

   

/

 0

#1

2

&"3



   







 

  

#  !  #  45  



  '()   6!



  "7 #

*++"*

5*44

  

  

   

# 



8 ) !

  3    "

/





3  

 

 "   3

   

(2   / 3

+n the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. &







  @

3              

  !

@# 3  



  %-    

 

 "

 

  



 



/ 

    +  3   

   "



 






0 

  "

  #$

 

   

=

  

   / %% 1/

3 



 



4

"

3"

  

  , **/   2.9 +     <

   @, <





 @,