Crl. Misc. No.M-25554 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-25554 of 2010 Date of decision: 01.04.2011 Darshan Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.B.S. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.T.S. Salana, Sr.DAG, Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 05.09.2009 for the offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the information sent by Purshotam Singh Inspector who, on 05.09.2009, along with other police officials were on patrolling duty and carrying out checking at check point that had been set up at SYL Canal, Chunni Khurd. The vehicles coming from the Chandigarh side were being checked with the help of other police officials. In the meantime, Mandeep Singh alias Lucky came there and Purshotam Singh (Inspector) was talking to him. In the meantime, a silver colour Honda City car came from Chandigarh side which was signalled to stop but the driver of the said car tried to run away. With the help of other police officials, the car was stopped and the driver of the car disclosed his name as Darshan Singh (petitioner). He did not give satisfactory reply on interrogation, which raised a suspicion that he was carrying some intoxicating material. A search was carried out after Crl. Misc. No.M-25554 of 2010 ::2:: following the procedure and by calling Deputy Superintendent of Police Rajwinder Singh, PPS Bassi, Pathana at the place of incident. On the search of the vehicle, 12 white colour plastic bags were found in the car. They were found to contain poppy husk and each bag weighed 17 Kgs. In this manner, 204 Kgs of poppy husk was recovered. The 24 sample packets from each of the bags were taken and were sealed with the seal 'PS' and 'RS'. The Honda City car was also taken into possession by the police. The petitioner could not produce any licence or permit for keeping the poppy husk. Therefore, it was observed that he has committed an offence under Section 15 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted certified copies of the interim orders passed in this case to contend that despite several adjournments, no prosecution witness is being examined. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the trial in the case is in progress and no witness has been examined so far. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is in custody since 05.09.2009 and till date only one prosecution witness out of 11 prosecution witnesses has been examined. The interim orders that have been submitted on record show that on 21.05.2010 H.C. Kamaljit Singh and M.H.C. Paramjit Singh did not appear despite service. They were summoned through bailable warrants for 05.06.2010. On 05.06.2010 no PW was present and the case was adjourned to 08.07.2010. On 08.07.2010, no one was present and neither any witness was served. The case was adjourned to 30.08.2010. The other interim order is of 24.09.2010 on which date the Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 12.10.2010 for Pws. On 12.10.2010, no prosecution witness was present and the case was adjourned to 02.12.2010. On 02.12.2010 PW-Mandeep Singh was given Crl. Misc. No.M-25554 of 2010 ::3:: up and no other PW was present and the case was adjourned to 22.12.2010. On 22.12.2010, no prosecution witness was present. Summons of PW-Davinder Pal Singh ASI and Inspector Purshotam Singh were received back unserved and the case was adjourned to 18.01.2011. On 18.01.2011, no prosecution witness was present. Purshotam Singh Inspector had sent a written request. ASI Davinder Singh did not appear despite service. He has been summoned through bailable warrants. The case was adjourned to 08.02.2011. On 08.02.2011, no PW was present. ASI Davinder Pal Singh and Inspector Purshotam Singh had sent written requests. They were ordered to be summoned for 22.02.2011. On 22.02.2011, no PW was present and SI Davinder Pal Singh and Inspector Purshotam Singh had sent written requests. The case was adjourned to 11.03.2011. On 11.03.2011 again no PW was present and on written request of ASI Davinder Pal Singh, the case has been adjourned to 04.04.2011. In the facts and circumstances, it is quite evident that the prosecution is not serious in prosecuting the case. In the circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehgarh Sahib, shall be admitted to bail. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. (S.S. SARON) April 01, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet