High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagtar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2009
Crl. Misc. No.M-24134 of 2009                                 -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                AT CHANDIGARH

                                   Crl. Misc. No.M-24134 of 2009
                                   Date of decision: 03.09.2009

Jagtar Singh                                         ...Petitioner

                       Versus


State of Punjab                                      ...Respondent

Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL.

Present: Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner.

L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL)

Jagtar Singh has filed this petition for bail in case FIR

No.341, dated 19.11.2007, under Sections 15, 25, 61 and 85 of

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short, the NDPS

Act) registered at police station Jagraon, Distt. Ludhiana.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the case file.

Without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner

does not deserve the concession of bail because the petitioner and

his co-accused Iqbal Singh had filed Crl. Misc. No.M-6396 of 2008

for anticipatory bail in the instant case and the same was dismissed

as withdrawn on 04.04.2008. However, inspite thereof, the petitioner

did not surrender and remained absconding and was declared

proclaimed offender, and ultimately he was arrested in some other

case on 21.02.2009 as submitted by learned counsel for the

petitioner. In view of this conduct of the petitioner, benefit of bail

cannot be granted to him because he is likely to abscond if released

on bail.

Crl. Misc. No.M-24134 of 2009 -2-

In addition thereto, 13 bags of poppy husk have been

recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused. The quantity of

poppy husk being commercial, petitioner is not entitled to be released

on bail in view of bar created by Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended

that the place from where the recovery of 5 bags of poppy husk is

shown to have been effected does not belong to the petitioner nor

the petitioner was present at the spot. In addition thereto, 8 bags of

poppy husk were recovered from a truck standing in the said

premises. The petitioner has not even stated in the petition that he is

not owner of the said truck. Be that as it may, as commercial

quantity of contra band of poppy husk has been recovered, the

petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

Keeping in view all the circumstances, but without

meaning to express any opinion on merits, I do not find it to be a fit

case for releasing the petitioner on bail. The bail petition is

accordingly dismissed.

( L. N. MITTAL )
JUDGE
03.09.2009
A.Kaundal