Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2020) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 15619 = 2020 L.A.R. (e-Suppl.) 1941
Decided on: 10.11.2020
Present:
Mr. B.S. Jatana, Advocate for Mr. Tejinder Pal Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. H.S. Sullar, DAG, Punjab.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 439 -- Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985), Sections 22, 29 – NDPS case – Regular bail -- Commercial quantity -- Recovery of 70 strips of Clovidol (each strip containing 10 tablets) i.e. total 700 intoxicant tablets – No other case pending or registered, petitioner in custody since 16.01.2020 -- Not disputed that recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally higher than commercial quantity -- Challan was presented on 10.07.2020, trial of the case would take time to conclude -- Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars -- Without commenting anything on the merits, petition allowed and the petitioner ordered to be released on bail.
(Para 2-7)
***
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL) –
1. Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.
2. Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.5 dated 16.01.2020 registered under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Dharamgarh, District Sangrur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the alleged recovery of 70 strips of Clovidol (each strip containing 10 tablets) i.e. total 700 intoxicant tablets was effected from the petitioner, which is marginally higher than the commercial quantity. It is further stated that there is no other case pending or registered against the petitioner and that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.01.2020.
4. Learned State counsel points out that in this case on seeing the police party, a bag was thrown by the petitioner on the roadside from which the aforesaid recovery of commercial quantity of the contraband was effected. He does not, however, dispute that the recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally higher than commercial quantity and that the petitioner has been in custody since 16.01.2020.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The petitioner has been in custody since 16.01.2020. The challan was presented on 10.07.2020 and no other case is pending or registered against the petitioner. Trial of the case would take time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars.
7. In view of the above, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
Petition allowed.
********