Satpal Singh Alias Satta v. State Of Punjab
!"#
#$%&% ' ( (
) * ( +
+ +
!
"
# $
+ + , ( -.!/0 % !!&'(
! )*+ ,- ', ., /./, !///0 ! ,(10 ! #!
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case where the petitioner is in custody for about 2 years and 2 months and after the completion of the investigation of the case, final report under Section 173
! ! !
2 3 .& ./ /.//2 3,4 5 5.0 .& /./'
6 ! )* 2 !7!!2 !3!2 2
! 2 ! 3100% 2
He submitted that it is a case where the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the police by planting a case upon the petitioner and it was due to political enmity and the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. To substantiate his arguments, he submitted that after the framing of the charges on 04.02.2022 which is more than one year, no prosecution witness has been examined till date despite the fact that the entire criminal law was set into motion by the police officials themselves who had apprehended the petitioner. During the course of arguments, ! ! 8 2 3 !
3"!"79
:
! ,' ; ! 3
! 2 ! 2 3 < !22
2 ! ! 3 !
3 ! 3 ! 2
6 2 2 ! ! 3 ! !!! 232
33 ! 6 2 !!!! ! !'- +# !23 2 6 6= +!"#'1#. 234!.
'"%/ 5( #'".!/
3.#!3
'5#&"%6!"% ' !'1 !'
"7#.
/.//>,.?
0, ! !
"2 2 !!@ ! !/,
On the other hand, "
# $ has submitted, on instructions from ASI Jarnail Singh, that it is correct that the petitioner has faced incarceration for about two years and two months and the charges in the present case were framed on 04.02.2022 and no prosecution witness has been examined till date. She has also stated that it is also correct that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. She has however opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that the quantity which was recovered from the petitioner and the other co-accused is 855 tablets of Tramadol which falls within the commercial quantity under the +# ! Section 37 !23 !
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The dates as aforesaid are not in dispute. The petitioner has already faced incarceration for about two years and two months. The charges in the present case were framed on 04.02.2022 and no prosecution witness has been examined till date. The petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case. A
perusal of the zimni orders (Mark-X) which have been produced today in the Court by ! would show that for 13 times the learned trial Court had adjourned the matter for summoning the prosecution witnesses and some of the prosecution witnesses were served at the first instance and for at least three times the Court was constrained to issue bailable warrants against the police officials who are the prosecution witnesses in the present case. % 6=
!>?
! ! !/, &. !7 A&.
7!>,? !! ! 3773 ! ! ! !
! ! 3 !3 2 2 62 7 ! ! ! '.( ! 2 3 !! !
! " 5! 3!
:!
3 2 3 3 ! !2!3 !/, 2 !! !! !!2 ! ! :
3 ! !!! !!3!! 2 !/, :
!2 ! ! ! 2 !3 @2!! 3
" !! 3 !! 2B B * !!! ! ! 2 ! !2 ! 2 ! bailable warrants been issued to them
# ! !!@32 !2 !3 2 2 3 ! ! !2 !! ! !2 ! 2 ! 3 !
2
! 3!
! " !!'- !!! ! !! 3 ! ! ! ! 3 ! 3! ! 6! ! " !!'- ! !!'- !2 3 ! !3 ! ! !! ! !/, In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the
8
view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. % ! C3 ! C#3 !! 62 3 5 !3 ! -
+ + 0
!.$7 ,
:
" DC+ :
DC+