Crl. Misc. No.M-31023 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-31023 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.11.2010 Ranjit Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.61 dated 11.05.2005 registered against him for the offence under Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (for short 'NDPS Act'). The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of memo sent by Ajmer Singh, ASI, SHO, Police Station Sadar Moga. On the date of incident i.e. on 11.05.2005, ASI Gurcharan Singh along with other Police officials were present at link road from Duneke to Ratia in the area of Duneke in an official Mini Bus which was being driven by H.C. Gurdev Singh-362. They were conducting checkings and search of suspicious persons. At about 5.00 a.m., one truck came from village Dhaleke, which was signalled to stop by ASI Gurcharan Singh. The truck was being driven by Ranjit Singh @ Neela (petitioner) who was identified by ASI Dilbagh Singh as he was known to him earlier. The petitioner Crl. Misc. No.M-31023 of 2010 ::2:: instead of stopping the truck drove it away towards Ratia road and after about 15-16 karam ahead, he (petitioner) stopped the truck and ran away towards Khosa Mando in the fields. He was chased by ASI Bikkar Singh and others but he could not be arrested. A search of the truck was carried out and 34 bags containing poppy husk weighing 35 Kgs in each bag were recovered. The total recovery that has been effected was found to be 1240 Kgs. The petitioner filed an application for pre-arrest bail, which was granted by the learned Special Judge, Moga vide order dated 19.07.2005 (Annexure P-2). However, he did not surrender thereafter. The Challan in the case was filed on 22.12.2009. In the meantime, the State filed an application under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of the bail which was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2007 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner, in fact, was in custody in another case i.e. FIR No.334 dated 27.11.2006 registered at Police Station City Moga for the offences under Sections 363 and 365 IPCand he was produced in Court in the present case on the basis of production warrants. The petitioner, then filed an application for permission to furnish bail bond in the present case, which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dated 21.04.2010 (Annexure P-4) on the ground that the petitioner did not apply for regular bail after he had been granted. Besides, he was already in custody i.e. in the aforesaid FIR No.334 dated 27.11.2006. Therefore, he could not be released on bail on the above said order dated 19.07.2005 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner then applied for regular bail which has been dismissed vide order dated 12.05.2010 (Annexure P-5). It is not disputed that the petitioner in the present case at one stage had been granted pre-arrest bail by the learned Special Judge, Moga vide order dated 19.07.2005 (Annexure P-2) and the Crl. Misc. No.M-31023 of 2010 ::3:: application filed by the State seeking cancellation of the said bail was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 06.02.2007 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner is now in custody since 22.07.2009. The trial in the case is likely to take time. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from HC Balraj, has submitted that there is no other case registered against the petitioner for the offence under the NDPS Act. Although, a case for the offences under Sections 363 and 365 IPC in FIR No.334 dated 27.11.2006 stand registered at Police Station City Moga, however, there is no case under the NDPS Act. The prosecution is to examine 16 witnesses in all and 7 witnesses only have been examined so far. The petitioner was not apprehended at the spot, therefore, his involvement in the case is to be established. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is resident of Moga and in case, he is granted concession of bail, he is not likely to abscond. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was not arrested from the spot and he is not involved in any other offence under the NDPS Act; besides, he is unlikely to abscond, it would be just and expedient to grant him the concession of regular bail. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court shall be admitted to bail. However, nothing stated hereinabove, shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the material and evidence as adduced before it. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly disposed of. November 22, 2010 (S.S. SARON) sukhpreet JUDGE