Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gagandeep Singh Alias Ghuddu vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035965
2024:PHHC:035965
CRM-M-62142-2023 (O&M) --1--
109+215 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-62142-2023 (O&M)
Decided on:-13.03.2024
Gagandeep Singh @ Ghuddu ....Petitioner..
vs.
State of Punjab ....Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present: Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Kewal Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
*****
HARKESH MANUJA J. (Oral)
CRM-8330-2024
Application is allowed as prayed for. Recovery memo
(Annexure A-1) is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Be tagged
at appropriate place.
Main case
1. By way of present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail
to the petitioner, pending trial in case FIR No.164 dated 13.08.2023,
registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station City
Jagraon, District Ludhiana (Rural).
2. In the present case, the petitioner has been implicated against
the alleged recovery of 850 tablets of "Taramadol Hydrochloride" in the
form of 85 strips of 10 tablets each.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even as per the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035965
2024:PHHC:035965
CRM-M-62142-2023 (O&M) --2--
recovery memo prepared by the Investigating Agency, the alleged recovered
85 strips of Tramadol Hydrochloride did not contain any batch number
(being erased) and thus, 01 strip of 10 tablets, which was sent to FSL for
examination could not have been termed to be a representative sample as
such, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. He placed
reliance upon judgments passed by this Court in CRM-M-51893-2023 titled
as "Sema Singh @ Ronki vs. State of Punjab", decided on 19.12.2023 and
CRM-M-1921-2024 titled as "Tarun Bhatia @ Cheenu vs. State of Punjab"
decided on 01.03.2024.
3. The prayer made herein has been opposed at the instance of
learned State counsel while referring to the recovery involved in the present
case which is of commercial quantity as 850 tablets of Tramadol
Hydrochloride were recovered from the petitioner, thus, he does not deserve
the concession of regular bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioners.
5. In the present case, investigation already stands concluded with
the filing of challan, followed by framing of charges and so far only 02
witnesses have been examined out of total 11 witnesses cited by the
prosecution. The petitioner is in custody for the past almost 07 months.
Moreover, a perusal of the recovery memo shows that the
alleged recovery was of 850 intoxicant tablets (85 strips) of Tramadol
Hydrochloride with no batch number (erased), whereas the sample which
was sent to FSL was only 01 strip containing 10 tablets, that too, with no
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035965
2024:PHHC:035965
CRM-M-62142-2023 (O&M) --3--
batch number.
6. Considering the fact that the alleged recovery made from the
petitioner did not contain any batch number; only one strip containing 10
tablets being sent to the FSL cannot be said to be considered as
representative sample unless all the recovered intoxicant tablets were mixed
and one sample was prepared and sent for chemical examination, thus, I do
not find any reason to extend the incarceration of the petitioner any further
7. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it
may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate.
8. It is made clear that this order may not be construed as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
13.03.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
sonika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/ No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035965
3 of 3
