Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1746 (PNJ)

Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-12-17

INDERJIT SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.146 dated 8.5.2014 registered for the offences under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station City Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran as the statutory bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 2. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Punjab. 3. On the asking of the Court, Mr. S.S. Chandumajra, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and have gone through the record. 5. It is admitted fact that the challan has not been presented in this case within 180 days. It is also admitted fact that before the expiry of the period of 180 days, the prosecution has filed application for extension of time on 3.11.2014 regarding which the notice to the accused has been issued through counsel firstly for 4.11.2014 and then to 5.11.2014. On 5.11.2014 the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Tarn Taran, extended the time for filing of the challan upto three months. 6. A perusal of this order dated 5.11.2014 shows that Shri Shivdeep Mehta, Advocate appeared on behalf of accused Balwinder Singh and Shri R.P. Lumba, Advocate appeared on behalf of accused Gurjant Singh, but written replies were not filed on behalf of the accused. The mere fact that at the start of the order while marking the presence, the presence of Shri G.S. Rana, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State was marked and it was written as none for the accused, it will, in no way, lead to the inference that no notice has been given and no body appeared on behalf of the present petitioner. The interim order placed on the record by the petitioner itself shows that the notice of the application was given on 3.11.2014 for 4.11.2014 through counsel and then as per order dated 4.11.2014 as the accused was not served, it was again ordered to be served for 5.11.2014. The interim order placed on the record by the petitioner itself shows that the notice of the application was given on 3.11.2014 for 4.11.2014 through counsel and then as per order dated 4.11.2014 as the accused was not served, it was again ordered to be served for 5.11.2014. The present petitioner has filed the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. on 5.11.2014, which means that already before the expiry of period of 180 days, an application was filed by the prosecution for extending the time, which was extended, after giving notice, on 5.11.2014 and the application of the prosecution was prior to the application filed under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. by the present petitioner, as the petitioner has filed the application on 5.11.2014. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sayed Mohd. Ahmed Kazmi v. State, GNCTD and others, [2012(6) Law Herald (SC) 5094] : 2012 (4) RCR (Cr.) 875 (3 Judges Bench), has held that the right of the accused for grant of statutory bail remains unaffected by subsequent filing of application for extension of time of investigation. In the present case, the application for extension of time has not been given subsequently, rather, the application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed subsequently by the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Kedia alias Sanjay Kedia v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau and another, [2010(2) Law Herald (SC) 1076] : 2010 (1) RCR (Cr.) 942 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “14. A bare perusal of this application shows that it has been filed by the investigating officer of respondent No.1 and does not indicate even remotely any application of mind on the part of the public prosecutor. It further does not indicate the progress of the investigation, nor the compelling reasons which required an extension of custody beyond 180 days. This application was allowed by the Special Judge on 2nd August, 2007 i.e. on the day on which it was filed which also reveals that no notice had been issued to the accused and he was not even present in Court on that day.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of granting extension being contrary to law. This application was allowed by the Special Judge on 2nd August, 2007 i.e. on the day on which it was filed which also reveals that no notice had been issued to the accused and he was not even present in Court on that day.” 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the order of granting extension being contrary to law. The law laid down in this judgment is of no benefit to the petitioner as already held, the Court had given the notice to the accused through the counsel before extending the time. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court in Bhupinder Singh alias Motta v. State of Punjab, (Cr. Misc. No.M-27594 of 2014, decided on 4.9.2014); Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (Cr. Misc. No.M-17425 of 2014, decided on 7.8.2014); Bikram Singh alias Vikram Singh v. State of Punjab, (Cr. Misc. No.M-27351 of 2014, decided on 27.8.2014) and Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (Cr. Misc. No.M-20586 of 2014, decided on 24.6.2014). 11. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as discussed above, the petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. 12. Therefore, finding no merit in this petition, the same is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————