Sanjay Kumar Alias Tari vs State Of Punjab

Harnaresh Singh Gill, J

Case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing. Custody certificate by way of an affidavit dated 28.11.2020 of Deputy Superintendent,

Central Jail, Bathinda, filed through email, is taken on record.

Through this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing FIR No.223 dated 30.09.2019 registered under

Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged recovery of 400 tablets of TREDOL-100 containing salt `Tramadol Hydrochloride' was

effected from the petitioner. The petitioner has been in custody since 30.09.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in CRM-13662-2020 titled `Niranjan

Kumar @ Kaka Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-14474-2020 titled `Dharminder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-21020-2020 titled `Amritpal Singh

Lamberdar Vs. State of Punjab, CRM-6433-2018 titled `Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Punjab and CRM-16380-2020 titled `Buta Singh Vs. State of

Punjab indicating that the recovery was effected from beneath the earth or on the side of the road and not from his personal possession.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon para 10 of the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-13423-2020, titled

`Pritam Singh Batra @ Giffy Vs. State of Punjab dealing with Section 37 (1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act.

Learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer for grant of bail to the petitioner, refers to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Criminal Appeal Nos.154-157 of 2020 titled State of Kerala etc. Vs. Rajesh etc. in which the alleged recovery was effected from the possession of

the petitioner.

Learned State counsel points out that the charges have already been framed against the petitioner and out of ten witnesses, none has been examined

so far. It is further pointed that the petitioner is also involved in two other cases under the Excise Act.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in one of the cases the petitioner has already been acquitted.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has been in custody since 30.09.2019. Trial of the case would take time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by

keeping the petitioner behind the bars.

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.