Pargat Singh vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 5142 P&H

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057331




                                                             2023:PHHC:057331

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
215
                                                    CRM-M-10841-2023
                                             Date of decision: 24.04.2023

Pargat Singh                                                     .....Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Punjab                                                .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present :    Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                                    ****

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under

Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.0046 dated 15.04.2021 under

Sections 22(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 (for short, 'the NDPS Act') registered at Police

Station Sirhali, District Tarn Taran.

2. This is the second petition filed under Section 439 of the

Cr.P.C. seeking similar relief, the previous one having been dismissed

as withdrawn on 10.05.2022.

3. On a pointed query put to the learned counsel for the

petitioner as to what was the material change in circumstances

subsequent to the withdrawal of the previous petition, he submits that

the trial has come to a virtual standstill as even charges have not been

framed till date even though the challan was presented way back on

08.10.2021. It has also been submitted that co-accused Prem Singh @

Prema who was allegedly apprehended with the petitioner along with

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057331

2023:PHHC:057331

contraband had since been extended the concession of bail by a

Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.02.2023 (Annexure

P-1). Leaned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has

now been in custody since 15.04.2021 for allegedly having been found

in possession of 4200 intoxicant tablets of Lomotil containing

Diphenoxylate salt. He submits that it was a case of chance recovery

wherein the police party apprehended the petitioner as well as the co-

accused and allegedly recovered the contraband in question from a

plastic bag which both of them were holding in their hands. Learned

counsel submits that it is in fact a case of false implication and that was

the reason why the prosecution was seeking repeated adjournments

before the Trial Court.

4. In support, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the

attention of this Court to the zimni orders annexed as Annexure P-5

wherein also it stands reflected that the case has been adjourned time

and again, for reasons not attributable to the petitioner, but to the

prosecution itself. He has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of

Investigation and another [ 2022 (10) SCC 51] to contend that

repeated adjournments in such like situation seriously affect the

Fundamental Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer

made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, has not been

able to controvert the factual aspect of the matter that the trial has come

to a standstill as the case is being repeatedly adjourned for reasons not

attributable to the petitioner.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057331

2023:PHHC:057331

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material placed on record.

7. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove,

the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner be admitted to bail to the

satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it

is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed

to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8. It is made clear that in case the petitioner is found misusing

the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation

of his bail.

24.04.2023                                   (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Vinay                                               JUDGE
               Whether speaking/reasoned        :      Yes/No
               Whether reportable               :      Yes/No




                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:057331

                                   3 of 3