Bikramjit Singh @ Vikramjit Singh ... vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 1397 P&H

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
214
                                           CRM-M-28260-2021 (O&M)
                                           Date of decision: 09.03.2022
BIKRAMJIT SINGH @ VIKRAMJIT SINGH @ VICKY @ WORLD
                                                                 ...Petitioner
                                  Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB

                                                              .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:-   Mr. Naveen Sharma, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Ajay Pal Singh Gill, DAG Punjab.

                  ****

HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (ORAL)

Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in

case bearing FIR No.175 dated 27.09.2019, registered under Sections 21,

22, 25 and 29 NDPS Act; challan presented under Sections 22, 25 and 29

NDPS Act; Section 25 Arms Act; Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 120-B IPC

and Section 12 of Passport Act, 1920, at Police Station Sadar Kapurthala.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, as per the

prosecution, on the basis of a secret information, naka was laid and the

petitioner along with the co-accused were apprehended at the spot and

that the alleged recovery of 50 injections of Buprenorphine IP Rexogesic

2 ml each, from the car make I-20 bearing No.PB-02-DV-6641, along

with one pistol without make black colour and 5 live cartridges 7.65 kf,

from the petitioner, was effected. He further submits that the ingredients

of IPC or Passport Act are not made out against the petitioner and the co-

accused and that the petitioner has been in custody since 27.09.2019.

                                  1 of 2

 214          CRM-M-28260-2021 (O&M)                              -2-

In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the

petitioner relies upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this

Court in CRM-M-7728-2018 titled Suraj @ Saroj vs. State of UT

Chandigarh, decided on 28.02.2018.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the

prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, does not dispute the

custody period of the petitioner. He, however, submits that the recovery

effected in the present case falls under a commercial quantity and Section

37 of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail to the accused in the case of a

commercial quantity. He further submits that the petitioner is a habitual

offender with criminal antecedents, inasmuch as, there are many more

FIRs registered and/or pending against him.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The recovery of contraband falls under the commercial

quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act bars the grant of bail to the

accused in the case of commercial quantity. Moreover, enlarging the

petitioner on bail would be a threat to the security of the society at large,

as keeping in view his criminal antecedents, he might involve himself in

many more criminal activities.

Keeping in view the above, no ground is made out to grant

the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Dismissed.

                                            (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
                                                  JUDGE
09.03.2022
Aman Jain
             Whether reasoned/speaking?        Yes/No
             Whether reportable?               Yes/No



                                   2 of 2