Gurpreet Singh Alias Guri v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: 03.04.2024 Gurpreet Singh @ Guri .... Petitioner versus State of Punjab .... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J. (Oral) 1.

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking concession of regular bail in case FIR No.155 dated 07.09.2023 under Sections 22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 27 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Bathinda District Bathinda.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case for allegedly being found in possession of five intoxicant bottles mark Wings Pharma, 100 Mls of codeine phosphate and Triprolidine Hydrochloride Syrup along with 5 strips consisting of 50 tablets of Carisoprodol tablets. It has been submitted that the petitioner's false implication in the present case is evident from the fact that he has no criminal antecedents as he has never been involved in any criminal

-2case much less under the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that after he was arrested on 07.09.2023, only charges had been framed till date and the recording of prosecution evidence was yet to commence. Hence, the likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future was not possible for which he deserved to be granted the concession of regular bail. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has submitted that a secret information was received by the police qua the involvement of the petitioner in drug trafficking; subsequent thereto, the petitioner along with the co-accused was apprehended after due compliance of all the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. Learned State has further submitted that no doubt, the petitioner has not been previously involved in any criminal case, however, the recovery of narcotic/contraband effected from the petitioner is huge and falls under the commercial category. Learned State counsel has further apprised the Court that the trial has been going on at a good pace and the charges were framed as recently as on 19.03.2024. The prosecution evidence therefore, would in all likelihood commence on the next date of hearing.

4.

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

5.

Prima facie, there are specific allegations levelled against the petitioner qua whom a secret information had been received and a

-3huge recovery of narcotic substances was allegedly affected from him. The recovery as already observed earlier has been classified as commercial under the NDPS Act.

6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed. 7.

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.

03.04.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No