Paramjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Paramjit Singh alias Pammi son of Karamjit Singh, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused, namely, Talwinder Singh @ Budha and Jagroop Singh @ Sisi vide FIR No. 118 dated 27.07.2013, on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 22 of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter to be referred as ''the NDPS Act), by the police of Police Station City Kharar, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. Subsequently, charge u/s 25 of the NDPS Act was framed against the accused, by the trial Court.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

Precisely, the prosecution, inter alia, claimed that, on 27.07.2013, in the wake of search of car bearing registration No. PB-10-DP(T)-1748, 110 grams of narcotic substance (powder), was recovered from main accused Talwinder Singh @ Budha whereas 90 grams of intoxicant substance was recovered from co-accused Jagroop Singh @ Sisi. After completion of the investigation, the police submitted the final police report (challan) against the indicated two accused. They were accordingly charge-sheeted and put on trial.

As soon as the main case was slated for recording the statement of main accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C., then the petitioner was arrested in this case on 19.05.2014, only on the ground that the petitioner was the owner of the indicated car. It is not a matter of dispute that, neither the name of the petitioner was mentioned in the FIR nor anything was recovered from him. Assuming for the sake of argument, in case the petitioner was the owner of the said car at the relevant time, even then as to whether the penal provisions of Sections 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, are attracted to the facts of the present case, against the petitioner or not, inter alia, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 09.05.2014. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The de novo trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail only.