Crl. Misc. No. M-19605 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-19605 of 2009 Date of Decision: 03.08.2009 Tasbir Singh @ Sabu @ Pardhan son of Gurdial Singh, r/o Near Kohar Ahata, Jhabal Road, District Tarn Taran. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Kamaljit Singh Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Bajwa, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent – State. SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for the grant of regular bail, has been filed by the accused-petitioner, in case FIR No. 134, dated 06.07.2008, under Sections 18 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (hereinafter to be called as the 'Act' only), Police Station Jandiala Guru, District Amritsar. 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the accused-petitioner, has submitted that this is the second petition for regular bail, having been filed by the petitioner, Crl. Misc. No. M-19605 of 2009 2 as his first petition for the same relief, was dismissed, on merits, on 02.12.2008. He has further submitted that the changed circumstances are that the petitioner has been in custody since 06.07.2008, and till date, only one witness has been examined. He has further submitted that the conclusion of the trial shall take a long time. He has further submitted that there was delay, in sending the sample, to the laboratory, which has cast a doubt, on the prosecution case. He has further submitted that the seal after use, was given, to a Police official, and that the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, though applicable, were not complied with. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, has submitted that the petitioner, was found in possession of 3 kgs of opium, without any permit or licence, which falls within the ambit of commercial quanitity. He has further submitted that, no doubt, only one witness, has been examined, but the prosecution shall take steps, to conclude the evidence, within the shortest possible time. He has further submitted that there is no changed circumstance, after the dismissal of the earlier petition for regular bail, on merits, of the petitioner. He has further submitted that the ingredients required for grant of bail, as envisaged, under Section 37 of the Act, are not fulfilled, and, as such, the petitioner, is not entitled to bail. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case, in which the bail, should be granted to the accused-petitioner, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The accused-petitioner, was allegedly found, in possession of 3 kgs of opium, without any permit or licence, which falls within the ambit of commercial Crl. Misc. No. M-19605 of 2009 3 quantity. According to Section 37 of the Act, for grant of bail, in a case, in which, the accused is allegedly found in possession of commercial quantity of the contraband, the Court, is required to record satisfaction, that there is a reasonable ground, that the accused, has not committed the offence, and that he shall not commit any such offence, in future, in case, released on bail. In the intant case, at this stage, it cannot be said that the accused has not allegedly committed the offence. Even no certificate, can be given, by this Court, that he will not commit any such offence, in future, in case, released on bail. The parameters laid down, for the grant of bail, in Section 37 of the Act, are, therefore, not fulfilled. No doubt, there is some lapse, on the part of the prosecution, in producing the evidence. However, the prosecution, can be directed, to conclude the evidence expeditiously. The delay, in sending the sample, in itself, is not sufficient to doubt the case of the prosecution. There is no provision, in the Act, or the Rules, framed thereunder, that the seal after use, should be given by the Investigating Officer or the DSP to a third person. Since the alleged recovery was effected from the accused-petitioner, from a public place, the provisions of Section 42 of the Act, were not applicable. On the other hand, the provisions of Section 43 of the Act, were applicable. There is, therefore, no changed circumstance, for the grant of bail, after the dismissal of the first petition for bail of the accused-petitioner, on merits, vide order dated 02.12.2008. The accused-petitioner is, thus, not entitled to the grant of bail. Criminal Misc. No. M-19605 of 2009, deserves to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-19605 of 2009, is dismissed. The trial Court, is, however, directed to conclude Crl. Misc. No. M-19605 of 2009 4 the evidence of the prosecution within a period of 10 months, from the first date, to be fixed, for the evidence of the prosecution, after the receipt of a certified copy of the order. Any observation made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 03.08.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE