Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 263 (PNJ)

Paramjit Kaur v. State of Punjab

2014-02-03

MAHESH GROVER

body2014
Mr. Mahesh Grover, J.: - This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. praying for release of the petitioner in terms thereof. 2. The allegation as appearing in F.I.R. No.94 of 2012 dated 18.8.2012 registered under Sections 15,29,61,65 of the N.D.P.S. Act at Police Station Mehatpur, District Jalandhar would suggest that a secret information was received about the sale of poppy husk from the Haveli of Baljit Singh alias Kala. A raid was conducted and from the adjacent area of the Haveli, 35 bags were recovered each containing 35 kgs. of poppy husk. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner disputes the factum of the petitioner being the wife of Baljit Singh who was allegedly indulging in the sale of poppy husk. It has been stated before this Court that she had no connection with Baljit Singh except to be acquainted with the wife of Baljit Singh. It has further been stated that neither the Haveli, nor the place from where the poppy husk has been recovered, belongs to the petitioner. That apart, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite the fact that two years have elapsed, hardly any evidence has been recorded and the trial is held up primarily on account of the fact that Baljit Singh is absconding. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand, contends that since heavy recovery has been effected from the petitioner, she cannot be granted the benefit of bail more particularly when her previous bail has already been rejected by this Court. He has also stated that out of twelve witnesses, two witnesses have been examined. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 6. On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that the delay on the part of the prosecution to conclude its evidence would be a factor to be considered in favour of the petitioner. Only two out of twelve witnesses have been examined despite the fact that the charge was framed in the year 2012 and the petitioner is in custody since 19.8.2012. 7. Only two out of twelve witnesses have been examined despite the fact that the charge was framed in the year 2012 and the petitioner is in custody since 19.8.2012. 7. Without commenting upon other aspects of the matter on merits, I deem it appropriate to accept the instant petition at this stage and direct that the petitioner be released on bail in terms of section 439 Cr.P.C. subject to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court which shall be at liberty to impose any conditions, as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.