Ajay Kumar v. State Of Punjab

   
  

   



  

!

"#$

$%&'& () *+ + *
   

  

 

 
 ) , - +

.


. .  

   

 
 

 

 
   !

"
#  

. . 

/

+ 0"1
! !

* 

$ 

!  $ 

 

%  &

 

$' 
 ( )*

+ 

 

$ 

$$& 

%  &

 

$'

!



 
 ( )*

$$ 

"&( %"'$ ,

 

$  

*-.

' ' $ 

$ $

+/0 12*3 

43  

446 7

2.35

 $

 #  " +

  

  It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is in custody from 28.05.2021, which is almost 1 year and 9 months. He submitted that after the completion of the investigation, final report under Section 173 

' ' $  has been presented to the competent Court and the charges in the present case were framed by the learned Judge, Special Court on 09.12.2021 and thereafter the trial has commenced. 8 



$$



$ &



 )  &

 
/ 



 $$



$ & &

   


/$  



$ 





$$

4511 $


$ %$1 5 &

 

 





 )  8 







$







 $$

%

 &$ $ 

&$



  $ 



$ 

 $ 

 &$ 

$  



$ $$ 



,  

 



it is a case where the police officials who had themselves set the criminal law into motion did not even care to depose before the learned trial Court. While referring to the zimni orders which he has placed on record before this Court, he submitted that after the framing of the charges, the learned trial Court had adjourned the case for about 26 times till date and out of which for about 18 times the prosecution witnesses were summoned repeatedly.

* In addition to above, out of the aforesaid 18 times rather for number of times bailable warrants were issued against the police officials who were the part of the police party and including one ASI Sapinder Singh who was the author of the present FIR and he is the investigating officer in the present case. While referring to the zimni orders, he further submitted that at the initial stages one ASI Mohan Singh was examined in-chief and ASI Mohan Singh is a person who had allegedly informed the police party which was headed by ASI Sapinder Singh. After the aforesaid ASI Mohan Singh was examined in-chief, he did not appear for cross-examination and for the purpose of securing his presence for crossexamination, the learned trial Court had to issue bailable warrants against him. 8



 

same thing happened with ASI Sapinder Singh who was the material witness being author of the FIR and heading the police party and he was also initially examined in-chief but again for the purpose of cross-examination, he was also summoned through bailable warrants for four times and it was only now in the month of January 2023 that ASI Mohan Singh has now been cross-examined but so far as ASI Sapinder Singh is concerned, he has still not been cross-examined as per the zimni orders. 8  

 

the aforesaid totality of the circumstances would show that it is not a case that the police officials who had set the criminal law into motion were not aware about the proceedings or that there were some reasons beyond their control but it is a case where they themselves deposed before the Court only for the purpose of examination-in-chief but for the purpose of cross-examination, the learned trial Court was constrained to issue bailable warrants against them for not one time but four times. 8 

net result of the same was that the petitioner who is otherwise having clean

 antecedents and not involved in any other case had to face incarceration for about 1 year and 9 months for no fault of the petitioner and only because of the aforesaid conduct of the police officials for which no justification has come forth. 8



in this way the bar contained under Section 37 

will not apply in the present case and has also referred to a judgment of

8:$

  '   ."#$(2$0 345"0

(#&1 6+
$(#0"1

40$"4

(6$'#&7"#& "(2 "( #8$0 41446217''52 



  On the other hand,  
   !

"
#  has stated that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody from 28.05.2021, which is almost 1 year and 9 months and there was an alleged recovery of 2500 tablets of Alprazolam of 0.5 mg from the two bags which were carried by two accused persons including the petitioner. She submitted 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

 

is hit by the bar contained under Section 37 

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has already faced incarceration for about 1 year and 9 months. The trial has already commenced. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. The law with regard to repeated adjournments and its effect upon Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been dealt with in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in


 :  6 7 ,

$   *1

      ) ;*1 )

627

    

 

  ) ) $$

 $





,





9

$  $

$  $   





    

  '      

   

$    

 &       &  

 8&

 ) $   

 -1.    &

 

  $   $



$ $ 



   , 

!

  

  $

 

 

  <   

 $  &

 $

   

   &$

$ $


 $ 42 ,  &



   

  ,   $  



  & $   

$   $ <

 

 



 $

$  $               &$  $ 
 $ 42 < $

  &$$    $

   $

    

   

  

&   



' =

 & 

 $$  !

 

             

  $    $ &> /

    

 $

%    

  $ 

&$ &

  4? 



&  

$'  &    23    

      &    &

      $ 



$$ &  
     & &

 



+/

6
/ 

7&  

$  $$ & ( )    $

$



 

 ) ( 

  



$$ &   

 

  &


/ 

& &



 & &



$ &  

  

&$ ( ) 

   ) (

&$

=  



$$ &        /

& & 2  4

$ 

 

$    &  $
/ 



$$

( @=      

    



  $ & &

    & 

   &  &

     $$

  ( )) 

   &    ) (   



   $$

&  &

  





  

 

$  $&  

'

   &

 

,



  

          

 $$ &

$    





  $ 

 $ 

' 

 

   &  &$$  

  & 



   $ 

   

$

,

      &$

 

'

 
  &   $



 $ 



 



  !     

    

-A

  

  $ 

 $ 

  $ 


  

 



 $

 

$ $





    

8



   !    

     

-A

   



     

-A

&$$   $  

     $$  

          $

$


 $ 42

'  /  In view of the facts and circumstances as narrated above, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. ,

$$ $ 

$ $

   $B



  

$' B" 

  8&



 

 $$



(  

$

  

. . 

 $:04"0;

*/

*  

<

 !

 B0 <

 $

 B0