Lovepreet Singh Alias Lav v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-60391-2024 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-60391-2024 Date of Decision: 01.05.2025 LOVEPREET SINGH @ LAV ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Abhishek Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG, Punjab.

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

This is a second petition for regular bail filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C in case FIR No. 9 dated 09.01.2023 registered under Sections 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act at Police Station City-I, Abohar, Punjab. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was apprehended along with co-accused having in their possession 1,25,000 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol (1,10,000) and Clovido-100SR (15,000) in the truck. The petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner is in custody since his arrest and the trial in the case will take time to conclude.. He further submits that it is yet to be proved in the trial that petitioner being a conductor of the truck was in conscious possession of the contraband since the truck was not loaded before him. The co-accused had also been granted concession of regular bail by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. 3.

Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years 03 months and 13 days. He vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that Renu Rawat 2025.05.01 04:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-60391-2024 -2allegations against the petitioner are very serious. He further submits that out of 19 prosecution witnesses only, 04 witnesses have been examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case under NDPS Act except the one under Prison Act.

5.

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

6.

In view of the above submission of learned counsels, since the trial in the case is progressing at snails pace; officials witnesses are not appearing for evidence in spite of the long incarceration of 02 years 03 months and 13 days of the petitioner; remaining witnesses is likely to the take time; continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial.

7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8.

It is clarified that if on bail so granted through the instant order the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

9.

Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (H.S.GREWAL) 01.05.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.05.01 04:46 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document