AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 507 wordsSuvir Sehgal, J
The Court has been convened through video conferencing due to Covid-19 pandemic.
CRM No.23397 of 2020
Prayer in the application is for preponement of the hearing of the main case which is fixed for 16.10.2020.
Notice of the application to the non-applicant/respondent. Mr.S.P.S.Tinna, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, who is available on conference call, accepts notice on behalf of the non-applicant/respondent. He does not have any objection to the advancement of hearing of the main case.
Application is allowed. Hearing of the main case is preponed and is taken on board today itself.
CRM-M-41778 of 2019
Present petition has been filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.162, dated 12.07.2018 registered under Sections 22 and 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "the NDPS Act") at Police Station Daresi, District Ludhiana.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the alleged recovery was effected from the petitioner when he was intercepted by the police party while driving a motorcycle, but no independent witness was associated at the time of his search. His argument is that the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, have been violated. Still further, he submits that the alleged recovery is of 280 grams of heroin is marginally more than the quantity specified for non-commercial quantity in the NDPS Act. He has placed reliance upon the orders of this Court passed in CRM-M-25658-2012 titled as 'Lakhwinder Singh alias Bittu versus State of Punjab' on 05.12.2012; CRM-66005-2012 in CRA-S-923-SB-2012 titled as 'Shinda versus State of Punjab' on 09.05.2013 and CRM-M-44066-2019 titled as 'Pritam Kaur @ Bawi versus State of Punjab' on 31.01.2020. He urges that the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest and is not involved in any other criminal case. He submits that keeping in view the situation prevailing as a result of outbreak of Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, the trial is likely to take sometime to conclude and the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, State counsel upon instructions from ASI Gurwinder Singh has opposed the petition on the ground that recovery was effected from the person of the petitioner in the presence of DSP rank officer. On the basis of the custody certificate dated 22.09.2020 filed by the State counsel, which is taken on record, he accedes to the fact that there is no other case pending against the petitioner. As per his instructions, the charges were framed on 04.05.2019 and 01 out of 12 prosecution witnesses, has been examined.
I have considered the rival submissions.
Keeping in view period of incarceration of the petitioner, the quantity of contraband recovered and likely delay in trial due to the spread of the contagion, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in further detention. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate.