Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Kumar @ Rana vs State Of Punjab on 4 December, 2012
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
Crl. Misc. No.M-34499 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No.M-34499 of 2012
Date of Decision: 04.12.2012
Narinder Kumar @ Rana ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
BEFORE :- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present:- Mr. U.K. Agnihotri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, D.A.G., Punjab
for the respondent-State.
*****
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.24 dated 07.04.2012 under Sections 21/61/85 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station Maqboolpura, District Amritsar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case, whereas, he was not involved. The alleged recovery has been planted upon the petitioner, whereas, neither any gazetted officer was there at the time of alleged recovery nor any independent witness was joined and even the mandatory provisions of Section 50 of the NDPS Act were also not complied with. Learned counsel also submits that all these medicines, as alleged in the petition, are easily available in the market and the petitioner is not involved in any other case of NDPS Act.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail of the petitioner on the Crl. Misc. No.M-34499 of 2012 2 ground that the quantity is commercial.
I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the contents of the FIR as well as other documents on the file. As per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was found in possession of 5580 capsules of Amphetamine Parvon Spas and the same falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. The petitioner is neither a chemist nor was authorized to carry such quantity of alleged capsules. Admittedly, the alleged recovery comes in commercial category and the petitioner is in custody since 07.04.2012 and only charge has been framed.
In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. The petition is dismissed accordingly.
However, the trial Court is directed to make all efforts to expedite the trial.
(DAYA CHAUDHARY) 04.12.2012 JUDGE gurpreet