Jasvir Singh v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-60208-2024 Date of decision: May 21st, 2025 Jasvir Singh .....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab .....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (ORAL) Petitioner is seeking the concession of regular bail in FIR No.72 dated 02.10.2024 under Sections 22, 29 of The NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Rureke Kalan, District Barnala. 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents and has now been in custody since 02.10.2024. It has been further contended that as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner was intercepted on suspicion leading to a recovery of 600 intoxicant tablets (intermediary). Learned counsel submits that the recovery of intoxicant tablets has been planted upon the petitioner, which finds credence also from the fact that he has never previously been booked in any criminal case much less under the NDPS Act. Still further, it has been argued that after the challan was presented on 29.11.2024, charges were framed on 10.12.2024, however, the possibility of the trial concluding in the near PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.21 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

CRM-M-60208-2024 -2future did not arise as only two out of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner nor has he disputed the stage of trial. Learned State counsel has placed on record the custody certificate of the petitioner, wherein it stands reflected that the petitioner has clean antecedents. It has also not been disputed, on instructions, that the alleged recovery was effected from the petitioner after he was nabbed on suspicion and falls within the intermediate quantity as per the NDPS Act.

4.

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

5.

The petitioner has been in custody since 02.10.2024. There is no possibility of the trial concluding in the near future, with as many as 13 prosecution witnesses remaining to be examined. 6.

In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. 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. 7.

Needless to say, in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of the same.

May 21st, 2025 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No PUNEET SACHDEVA 2025.05.21 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh