Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Singh @ Babby vs State Of Punjab on 5 March, 2014
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
102
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.7429 of 2014 in/and
CRM No.M-6751 of 2014
Date of decision: March 05, 2014
Paramjit Singh @ Babby
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Sandeep Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
INDERJIT SINGH, J.
CRM No.7429 of 2014 The application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P-1 is taken on record.
CRM No.M-6751 of 2014 This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.171 dated 23.06.2010 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Samrala, District Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was on interim bail but his bail was cancelled. He further argued that petitioner is a licence holder and anticipatory bail should be granted to him.
Gulati Vineet 2014.03.10 13:56
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM No.M-6751 of 2014 -2- gone through the record.
From the record, I find that FIR is of 23.06.2010 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act etc. As per Annexure P-3, petitioner was already arrested in this case and he filed application for regular bail on the ground that Chemical Examiner report was not received, and therefore, he was released on interim bail till the receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not produced copy of that order vide which regular bail application has been finally disposed of. Prima facie it looks that the said application has been dismissed and that is why the petitioner has now again filed application for anticipatory bail. Once the regular bail application has been dismissed, the natural course for the petitioner is to surrender himself before the Court and not to again file the application for anticipatory bail. Otherwise also, the recovery from the petitioner is of 6400 capsules of parvon spas, 560 tablets of lomotil, 30 bottels of Rexcof, 1300 tablets of phenotil, 20 capsules of spasmo proxyvon, 75 capsules of Dexovon and 70 grams intoxicant powder. As per the order of the trial Court, the recovery from the petitioner falls under the commercial quantity. Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars to grant bail in case of commercial quantity.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
March 05, 2014 (INDERJIT SINGH)
Vgulati JUDGE
Gulati Vineet
2014.03.10 13:56
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh