Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1777 (PNJ)

Bhupinder Singh v. State of Punjab

2014-12-19

JITENDRA CHAUHAN

body2014
JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral) - By filing the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner has sought regular bail in case FIR No.94, dated 13.07.2010, registered under Section 18, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Ghall Khurd, District Gurdaspur. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that only on the strength of the custody period, the present petition deserves to be allowed. All the family members of the petitioner have been falsely implicated in the present case. All the co-accused of the petitioner have already been admitted to bail by this Court and they have not misused the concession of bail. The petitioner is a respectable person and is the owner of kanals of land and there is no possibility of his running away from the process of the Court. The petitioner is in custody since 13.07.2010. 3. On the other hand, the learned State counsel opposes the prayer and states that quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial. He is the owner of the vehicle from which the recovery was effected. The challan has already been presented and out of 11 witnesses, three have been examined. 4. Heard. 5. Admittedly the quantity is commercial. The petitioner is in custody since 13.07.2010. A bare perusal of the record would reveal that despite sufficient opportunities, the prosecution has not been able to conclude the evidence. The challan was filed as back as on 19.01.2012 but still eight witnesses remain to be examined. The petitioner is neither required nor involved in any case under NDPS Act. The other co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of bail. The petitioner cannot be kept in incarceration indefinitely. 6. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the period of incarceration and and the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, without adverting to the merits of the instant case, this petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to regular bail during the pendency of the trial, on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 7. Anything said herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————