Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovekesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 9 December, 2013
Author: Ritu Bahri
Bench: Ritu Bahri
Crl. Misc. No. M-29153 of 2013 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-29153 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision : 09.12.2013
Lovekesh Kumar Sharma ....Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
Present: Mr. Hitesh Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Gurveer Sidhu, AAG, Punjab
****
RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral)
This petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case F.I.R No. 142 dated 18.11.2012 u/ss 18/25/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Model Town, Disst. Ludhiana The allegation as per the F.I.R against the petitioner is that he was apprehended by the police as he was found in possession of 2.800 kgs of opium without any permit or licence.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally higher than the commercial quantity, which is 2.5 kg, as per NDPS Act and has been mentioned at Sr. No. 92 Learned State counsel on instructions from HC Satish Kumar has informed the Court that after investigation in this case, challn has been presented against Balwinder Singh Arora and Gaurav the 2014.01.08 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc. No. M-29153 of 2013 (O&M) -2- present petitioner. The case is now fixed for recording of evidence of 13 prosecution witnesses on 19.12.2013. Balwinder Singh is facing trial in 2 cases and no case is pending against the present petitioner. So, question whether the petitioner was employee of Balwinder Singh shall be seen at the final stage of the appeal.
The petitioner is in custody since 18.11.2012. Nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner, therefore no useful purpose would be served by detaining them during the pendency of trial.
Heard.
Keeping in view the period of incarceration of the petitioners and the fact that trial may still take some time to conclude, this court feels that there is no need to detain the petitioner any longer. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be enlarged on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.
09.12.2013 (RITU BAHRI) G.Arora JUDGE Arora Gaurav 2014.01.08 14:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document