Mohd. Rustam vs State Of Punjab
2021 Latest Caselaw 48 P&H

CRM-M- 22252-2020 (O&M)                                                        -1-


    IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
                HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                          CRM-M- 22252-2020 (O&M)
                                          Date of Decision: January 07, 2021

Mohd. Rustam

                                                                   ... Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Punjab

                                                                 ... Respondent

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:-   Mr. Sunny K. Singla, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Ms. Rashmi Attri, DAG, Punjab.
                       ****

JAISHREE THAKUR, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 62 dated

18.04.2020, under Sections 15, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at

Police Station City 1 Malerkotla, District Sangrur.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

herein is in custody in the aforesaid FIR since 22.04.2020. It is further

contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case

and that petitioner is not the owner of the truck from which the alleged

recovery of poppy husk has been effected and that nothing is to be

recovered from the petitioner herein. Learned counsel further relies upon

the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of 'Sandeep

alias Koka vs. State of Haryana' in CRM-M-7885-2020 decided on

1 of 2

CRM-M- 22252-2020 (O&M) -2-

05.11.2020 and 'Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder vs. State of Punjab' in

CRM-M-18312-2020 dated 14.08.2020 while contending that the petitioner

is ready to prove his bona-fides and undertake that he will not involve

himself in any other case.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-

State, on instructions from the Investigating Officer, opposes the grant of

regular bail to the petitioner, while submitting that no ground is made out

for concession of regular bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Since, in view of the restricted working of the Courts due to

pandemic COVID-19 situation and in view of the facts that the trial is likely

to take time and that the petitioner herein has been in custody since

22.04.2020 and the petitioner is not the owner of the truck from which the

alleged contraband recovery has been effected, no useful purpose would be

served in keeping the petitioner behind bars. At this stage, without

commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed and the

petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his execution of adequate

personal bond and heavy surety amounting to Rs. 5 lacs to the satisfaction

of concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, any observation made

herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case.

                                              (JAISHREE THAKUR)
January 07, 2021                                   JUDGE
seema

Whether speaking/reasoned                            Yes/No
Whether reportable                                   Yes/No




                                  2 of 2