Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avneesh Kumar Son Of Sh. Ishwar Chand Son ... vs State Of Punjab on 14 July, 2009
Crl.Misc. No.M- 16030 of 2009
--1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA,
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc. No.M-16030 of 2009
Date of decision.14.07.2009
Avneesh Kumar son of Sh. Ishwar Chand son of
Parmanand, resident of Datiana, P.S. Sambauli,
District Gaziabad (UP).
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER
Present:- Mrs. P.S. Kahlon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vivek Chauhan, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
********
Sham Sunder, J.
This petition, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed by the accused-petitioner, for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No. 83 dated 14.02.2008, under Section 22 of the Crl.Misc. No.M- 16030 of 2009
--2--
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Police Station Sadar Amritsar, which was registered against him and his co- accused, on the allegations that they were found in conscious possession of 250 grams of cocaine, falling within the ambit of commercial quantity.
2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case carefully.
3. The Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that this is the third petition for regular bail, having been filed by the petitioner as his earlier two petitions for regular bail were dismissed on merits, vide order dated 16.10.2008 and 15.01.2009, respectively. She has further submitted that the changed circumstance for filing the present petition is that the petitioner has been in custody since 14.02.2008 and no progress has been achieved in the trial of the case after the dismissal of the earlier bail petitions, filed by him. She Crl.Misc. No.M- 16030 of 2009
--3--
has further submitted that the co-accused of the present accused-petitioner from whom the alleged recovery, was effected, was granted bail by a Coordinate Bench. She further submitted that the report of the Chemical Examiner is not correct.
4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent-State, has submitted that Kiran Pal, co-accused of the accused- petitioner and he were together and as such 250 grams of cocaine, was recovered from their joint possession. He has further submitted that, as such, both the accused could be said to be in conscious possession of cocaine. He has further submitted that since the accused- petitioner and his co-accused were found in possession of commercial quantity of cocaine; the parameters laid down in Section 37 of the Act, for grant of bail are not fulfilled and, as such, he is not entitled to the relief.
5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, Crl.Misc. No.M- 16030 of 2009
--4--
raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case, in which the bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. Both Kiran Pal and the present accused-petitioner were together when cocaine weighing 250 grams was allegedly recovered from the plastic bag, in possession of one of them. Both were, thus, allegedly in joint possession of the contraband. Even the accused, during the course of interrogation, made a disclosure statement, that his co-accused namely Kiranpal, had concealed 1 ½ kg cocaine, of which, both of them knew and could get the same recovered. Similar, disclosure statement was made by Kiranpal. This shows the connivance of the accused, and his co-accused. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, the test for cocaine in the sample was positive. Against the column of percentage of cocaine, 61 per cent was written in the report of the Crl.Misc. No.M- 16030 of 2009
--5--
Chemical Examiner. At this stage, therefore, it could not be said that the report of the Chemical Examiner in any way, is not correct. The report of the trial Court was also obtained, regarding the status of the case. The trial Court has reported that only three witnesses are yet to be examined. It, therefore, could not be said that no progress has been achieved in the case. The possession of more than 100 grams cocaine, falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. The accused-petitioner was allegedly found in possession of commercial quantity of cocaine. The Court, at this stage, cannot, record a certificate that the accused-petitioner has not committed any offence and that he will not commit such an offence in future, if he is granted bail. The mere fact that the co-accused of the present accused-petitioner, has been granted bail, by a Co-ordinate Bench, in itself, is not a sufficient ground, to grant him the same concession. No ground, Crl.Misc. No.M- 16030 of 2009
--6--
whatsoever, is made out, for the acceptance of Criminal Misc. No.16030-M of 2009 and the same deserves to be dismissed.
6. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. 16030-M of 2009, is dismissed.
7. Any observation made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.
July 14, 2009 ( Sham Sunder ) dinesh Judge