Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2023) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 17766
Decided on: 24.03.2023
Present:
Mr. Arun Singla, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Ravinder Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Section 22, 37 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- NDPS case – Commercial quantity -- Regular bail – Co-accused apprehended and commercial quantity of intoxicant tablets (Tramadol) recovered from him – Petitioner was not apprehended from the spot and was named in the disclosure statement -- As to whether the petitioner was involved or not shall be determined during the trial -- He is in custody for the last more than 08 months and not involved in any other case -- Trial will take a sufficiently long time -- Regular bail allowed.
(Para 2-6)
***
VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J. (ORAL) –
1. Prayer in the present petition is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.18 dated 30.01.2022, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘the Act’), at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala.
2. On 30.01.2022, one Jagga Singh was apprehended and a commercial quantity of intoxicant tablets (Tramadol) was recovered from him. During investigation, he suffered a disclosure statement naming the present petitioner as the person from whom he had allegedly purchased the contraband.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the petitioner is in custody since 10.07.2022; more than 08 months have elapsed; no recovery was made from him; co-accused from whom the recovery was made is in custody; there is no other case against the petitioner; trial will take a sufficiently long time and therefore no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent State has opposed the bail application. It has, however, been stated that as per the custody certificate the petitioner has undergone custody of 08 months and 16 days. The custody certificate which has been placed on record also shows that there is no other case against the petitioner.
5. The petitioner was not apprehended from the spot and was named in the disclosure statement alleged to have been suffered by Jagga Singh from whom the contraband was recovered, who is in custody. As to whether the petitioner was involved or not shall be determined during the trial. He is in custody for the last more than 08 months. He is not involved in any other case. Trial will take a sufficiently long time and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer.
6. In view of the above, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail to the satisfaction of concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
Petition allowed.
********