Jiwan Singh Alias Jimma vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 7295 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jiwan Singh Alias Jimma vs State Of Punjab on 5 April, 2024

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046682


206                                                  2024:PHHC:046682


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M-11653-2024
                                        DECIDED ON: 05.04.2024

JIWAN SINGH ALIAS JIMMA
                                                           .....PETITIONER

                                      VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                           .....RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:    Mr. Paramjit Singh Brar, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. P.S. Bhandari, AAG Punjab.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been

invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.178, dated 02.08.2022,

under Sections 22(C) of NDPS Act, 1985 Police Station Dharamkot, Moga.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery of 120 tablets

containing Etizolam salt has been planted upon the petitioner. The petitioner is in

custody since 04.08.2022. He has drawn attention of this Court to an order dated

18.01.2024 passed in CRM-M-1658-2024 by this Court, vide which co-accused

namely Baljinder Singh @ Kala has already been granted the concession of bail.

3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,

which is taken on record. He opposed the prayer made in the present petition stating

that the recovery effected from the petitioner falls under the commercial quantity.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046682

4. Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 1 year,

08 months and 4 days added with the fact that after framing of charges on

27.02.2023 out of total 12 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far,

which is sufficient for this Court to infer that the trial is moving at snail's pace, no

useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an

indefinite period, which would also curtail the right of the petitioner for speedy trial

and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India as

has been time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment

of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.

2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.

5. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner

is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

6. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be

construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                      (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
05.04.2024                                                 JUDGE
Meenu




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




                                       2 of 2