Shachi Parkash Sharma Alias Shashi Prakash Sharma v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 09.09.2024 Shachi Parkash Sharma @ Shashi Parkash Sharma .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Ms. Manpreet Ghumman, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Navdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

****** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) In compliance of order dated 24.07.2024, additional affidavit filed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Subdivision Malerkotla filed on behalf of respondent-State in Court today, is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Main case 1.

This is the petition filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.114 dated 17.08.2021 under Sections 22, 29, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City - 1, Malerkotla.

2.

Learned counsel for the State has not disputed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the place of origin of the alleged contraband comprising of 66,000 tablets of Alprazolam was J.K. Pharma, Varanasi (U.P.) and

-2furthermore, the petitioner has no criminal antecedents, much less being involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. Learned State counsel has also not disputed the stage of trial as not only challan stands presented but even charges framed. On a further query, it has been conceded on instructions that none of the 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. 4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated her submissions that the petitioner could not have been possibly aware about the contents of the packet sent through courier by J.K.Pharma to his courier agency, as firstly, it was received in a sealed and intact condition, and secondly, the role of the petitioner was limited to being a franchise-holder of the Courier Company. Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed that in the aforementioned facts and circumstances, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose as not even a single prosecution witness out of 21 cited has been examined in the preceding months and the case has been adjourned repeatedly on account of the repeated absence of the prosecution witnesses, who are all police officials. 5.

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

6.

The petitioner has been in custody since 26.04.2023. The investigation in the case in hand is complete as challan stands presented and even charges framed. The trial has not progressed

-3further after the charges were framed on 20.10.2023, as none of the 21 witnesses cited by the prosecution have been examined till date. 7.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court deems it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. 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.

8.

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.

9.

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.

09.09.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No