Crl. Misc.No.M-21992 of 2010 # 1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc.No.M 21992 of 2010 Date of Decision:-04.10.2010 Jagpreet Singh @ Shampy. ......Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab. ......Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr. R.S. Kundu, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab. *** JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Prayer is under Section 439 Cr.PC for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.03 dated 25.03.2010 under Sections 21/61/85 of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act registered with Police Station Mukandpur, District Nawanshahar now Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar, Punjab. The allegations against the petitioner are that he along with his co-accused Janak Raj were intercepted by the police while they were on foot and from their conscious possession 250gms each of Heroin was found on their personal search by the gazetted officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the amount of the contraband seized along with the manner of seizure suggests that Crl. Misc.No.M-21992 of 2010 # 2# the false case has been planted upon the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and there is no likelihood of the petitioner to commit any offence, if granted the concession of bail. It is also submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 25.3.2010 and the challan in the present case has been presented and the charges have been framed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the independent witness Rohit Sharma associated with the recovery is a stock witness. He submits that according to their information he has been cited as a witness of recovery in four other case. Learned State Counsel on instructions from ASI Jarnail Singh submits that plea of false implication is not substantiated by any record. After his arrest none of the relatives of the petitioners have approached any authority alleging their false implication. The plea of Rohit Sharma being a stock witness taken by the counsel for the petitioner at this stage is untenable. It is a matter of evidence to be seen at the stage of trial. Keeping in view the commercial quantity of the contraband recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, no case for grant of regular bail is made out. Dismissed. ( JASWANT SINGH ) JUDGE 04th October,2010 Vinay