Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karanveer Singh Alias Veeru vs State Of Punjab on 4 October, 2019
Author: Manoj Bajaj
Bench: Manoj Bajaj
CRM-M-42238-2019 -1-
211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42238-2019
Date of decision-04.10.2019
Karanveer Singh @ Veeru ....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ BAJAJ
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, DAG, Punjab.
***
MANOJ BAJAJ, J.
Petitioner-Karanveer Singh @ Veeru has prayed for grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case FIR No.80 dated 24.07.2015 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 Act at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran.
On 24.07.2015, when the police party was on patrol duty at village Jagatpura, one young man was seen coming from front side who on seeing the police, tried to run away. On suspicion, he was apprehended and after following the procedure, his search was conducted and 160 grams of intoxicating powder containing diphenoxylate hydrochloride was recovered from his possession.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the occurrence took place on 24.07.2015 and petitioner was arrested. Thereafter, interim regular bail was extended to the petitioner on 13.10.2015 on the ground that the FSL report was awaited. The petitioner remained on interim regular bail 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2019 17:38:17 ::: CRM-M-42238-2019 -2- till 13.08.2019 when his bail was cancelled on the ground that FSL stood received by the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said concession of bail was never misused by the petitioner for a period of long four years and no similar offence was added by him.
On the other hand, learned State counsel assisted by ASI Gursharan is unable to dispute the factual background and facts that the FSL report was received, escaped the attention of the Court and therefore, the petitioner continued to remain on interim regular bail. However, it is not disputed that concession was not misused and no other offence of similar nature was added.
Considering the above background and the fact that the trial of the case is likely to consume considerable time, further custody of the petitioner may not be justified. Therefore, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, it is ordered that the petitioner be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned.
The petition is allowed.
(MANOJ BAJAJ)
JUDGE
04.10.2019
vanita
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes No
Whether Reportable : Yes No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 07-10-2019 17:38:17 :::