CRM-M-5056 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-5056 of 2011 Date of decision: 03.05.2011 Shingara Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) Present petition is filed seeking regular bail in case FIR No.17 dated 24.2.2010 under Sections 15/61/85 NDPS Act, Police Station Dehlon, District Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in the present matter charges were framed on 11.8.2010 and thereafter total nine different dates were fixed for prosecution evidence, however, prosecution has failed to commence the evidence. Learned counsel placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala Vs. Raneef, 2011(1) RCR (Criminal) 381 has argued that if trial is not likely to be concluded at the earliest and is being adjourned for no fault of the accused, then in the event of rejection of the bail application, time spent in the jail during the trial cannot be restored to the accused, if ultimately he is acquitted by the trial Court. Ms. Bhavna Gupta, DAG, Punjab, on instructions from SI Swaran Singh, who is personally present in the Court, has fairly stated that despite of nine different dates fixed, prosecution witness could not be examined and case was adjourned from time to time. She has further CRM-M-5056 of 2011 -2- stated that earlier also two different FIRs i.e. FIR No.96/95 and FIR No.78/96 under Sections 15/61/85 NDPS Act were registered against the petitioner, therefore, petitioner has criminal history in narcotics matters. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from the wife of petitioner, who is present in Court, has vehemently argued that in both the previously registered cases under NDPS Act, petitioner has already been acquitted. He has further stated that both the cases were registered in 1995/1996 and thereafter for more than 15 years no other case was registered. Petitioner is in custody since 24.2.2010. Learned Counsel has vehemently argued that as per the prosecution story, petitioner started running after seeing patrolling party and was caught on getting suspicion and thereafter plastic bags lying on the roadside were opened and poppy husk was recovered from the bags. He has further argued that petitioner was not in conscious possession of the bags lying on the road. Learned counsel has further argued that no recovery can be said having been made from the conscious possession of the petitioner. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case that despite of nine different dates for no fault of the petitioner, prosecution witness has not been examined, petition is allowed. Let petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. (Alok Singh) Judge May 03, 2011 R.S.