Gurbhej Singh Alias Sajan v. State Of Punjab
-1-
!"
# $%&%!'(
'# ') *+,
(
-. /0 / /
!
"
### / , 1.2(
$
" %&' ! ( ) *+*' , -!) ./ (
" "
01)2*3 *3+4*+*'
*2 ** *' *3) 5 ( 23&6,-)5 ./ *6 *4 7 2363"
7 ,"/8
9::'3%;':*+*% 7
+%+%*+*6 * $""
*3+4*+*'
"
: 5
57
'* " *;6 7
-2- ( 77 "< ( " 7 : 7
'6"
'* 7 ( 2 6+ +++=: $
" ( 7 (7
""
:
>As per the allegations, the petitioner was apprehended by the police party on 29.07.2023 along with aforesaid co-accused and recovery of 310 grams of heroin and one .32 bore pistol was effected from him. The quantity of the recovered contraband falls under the commercial quantity. Hence, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would certainly be attracted against the petitioner. He is also shown to be involved in one more case of similar nature, apart from one other case which has been registered against him under the provisions of the Arms Act. Although, the petitioner has placed on record certain photographs in order to establish that he was in fact picked from a Dhaba but these documents cannot be looked into by this Court at this stage while deciding a bail petition. The allegations against the petitioner are quite serious.
The trial is going on and there is nothing on record to show that there would be any undue delay in conclusion of trial. The apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that the petitioner, if extended benefit of bail, may abscond or indulge in similar offences can also not be stated to be unfounded. Keeping in view the discussion as made above, the quantity of recovered contraband, the antecedents of the petitioner, the quantum of sentence which the conviction may entail and the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner does not deserve to be granted benefit of regular bail, at this stage. Hence, the petition is dismissed."
(
(
7 (:
-3- (?
"(+226 @7
$ (A : 5
"
@ "?
( "
7
"1 " " % B "
7 "(
("" " ""
'4)5
7 7
" "" 6 $ 9 " " ""
; $
*3+4*+*'$
". "(+2 @7
"
The petitioner is in custody for a period of about 02 years, 05 months and 24 days. This factor, in the opinion of this Court, is a ground to move for bail afresh. The Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in a catena of cases that an accused cannot be kept in custody for an indefinite period of time, and the bail application can be considered on its own merits even if it is filed repeatedly. It has also been held that every day spent in custody can provide a new cause of action for filing a bail application under certain
-4circumstances. This principle is a part of the broader approach emphasizing that law prefers bail over jail, aiming to balance the rights of the accused with the requirements of the criminal justice system. Prolonged detention itself is a ground for reconsideration of bail since the settled principle of law is that detention prior to trial should not become punitive. "
" 7 ( 8 ." @ 9
!
" " "(
"
'4)5
7
%';:
99 "
" 1 " " "
7 ""
$
7 7
77"
"( 7"
" " "#$%& '( ) #
*+!+
# $%# # !'
0
,- )#.
//
8 ." 79@ "
"
(
"
"
7 7 "
" *2 9
"7 (7
'4 )5 4 "
"" )0#1
-5- "##
"'' 3**
!
"( 8 ." 7 9
'4)5 ""
" 7 " "( 7" "1 :7 8 ." 791 """
77 "< ( " "
237 &
""(
#5 #" # %# 6 &
/ !/ "
"(
8 ." 791 "
" 7
"
'4)5 $ @
%';
, <
"
" " "
/ 9
" 9 234'""( 3 6 5 ),7 #
"'' 38//
! ( 77 < ( 8 ." 791 "
"
+*( +&7 2+ $ " @
" ) /!+889
! :-#
6-#
5 $
-6- %&
) "## ; &# #
"'' 3*<
! 22 ?
"(C
"
7
"
7
"" "
(
7 (: (D "
"( 7D
"
"( ( "D
" "
""
" "" 2*
9
7 "
"( "" " "
" "" ( " "9 "" "(
"(7 (
7 7 ( <
8""" "9 (
@ @7 ( "98"" (
" "" ""
7 " 7,/
( " 2' 1 " 7 "" @
9 7 ""
" 7
(7
-72%
7
"(
"
(
4 / 5
'# ') *+,