CRM NO.M-32847 OF 2010(O & M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM NO.M-32847 OF 2010(O & M) DECIDED ON : 02.02.2011 Jagraj Singh @ Pappi ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. C. PURI Present : Mr. B. S. Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. K. C. PURI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner earlier approached this Court three times for grant of regular bail but remained unsuccessful. The first bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 25.08.2009 passed by this court in CRM No. M-22509 of 2009. The second bail petition was dismissed vide order dated 16.12.2009 passed in CRM No. M-35132 of 2009. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court and his bail petition was disposed of vide order dated 31.03.2010 passed in CRM No. M- 4332 of 2010 with directions to expedite the trial, preferably within six months. The allegation against the petitioner is recovery of 11 bags of poppy husk each containing 35 kgs i.e 385 kgs poppy husk in all. CRM NO.M-32847 OF 2010(O & M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon order dated 25.10.2010 passed in CRM No. M-25556 of 2010 titled as, “Bheem Singh @ Bheema vs. State of Punjab”. The said case relates to recovery of 80 kgs of poppy husk from two persons. The recovery in the present case is very heavy. The quantity recovered is also commercial. The order dated 10.01.2011 passed in CRM No. M-33575 of 2010 titled as, “Baljinder Singh @ Billa vs. State of Punjab” is distinguishable from the facts of present case as in that case the recovery was effected at night time and there was non- compliance of Section 42 of the Act. The order dated 08.10.2007 passed in CRM No. M-34922 of 2007 titled as, “Gurmail Singh vs. State of Punjab” relates to recovery of 95 kgs of poppy husk in three bags from two persons. So, that case is also distinguishable to the facts of the case in hand. The menace of drugs is eating the roots of our society. The Parliament in its own wisdom has added Section 37 in the Act for refusing bail in case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of Article 21 of the Constitution, the petitioner cannot be kept in custody for long period. That aspect of the case has already been dealt with by this Court while passing order in CRM No. M-4332 of 2010 vide which it has been observed that the trial Court shall dispose of the case expeditiously, preferably CRM NO.M-32847 OF 2010(O & M) -3- within six months. Needless to say that the trial Court shall adhere to the order passed by this Court in the above said Crl. Misc. Petition. So, in view of the above circumstances, the petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. FEBRUARY 02, 2011 (K. C. PURI) shalini JUDGE