Crl.M.No.M-929 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-929 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 24, 2011 Yadvinder Singh @ Yadu .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.S.S,Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.1719 of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-929 of 2011 The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.7, dated 19.1.2008, under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, Nabha, District Patiala. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Judge, Special Court, Patiala, vide which application filed by the petitioner for grant of regular bail has been dismissed. Brief allegations against the petitioner -accused are that co- accused was arrested at the spot and 600 kg of poppy husk was recovered. Petitioner ran away from the spot alongwith another co-accused. At the same time, co-accused, who was arrested on the spot, disclosed his name. His name find mentioned in the FIR. Co-accused already faced trial and convicted. Petitioner-accused had been evading his arrest. An enquiry was got conducted by Superintendent of Police(D), Patiala, and the petitioner was found involved in this case. This is second application filed on behalf of the petitioner- Crl.M.No.M-929 of 2011 (O&M) -2- accused. First application for bail was dismissed on merit by this Court on July 8, 2010, in view of the fact that recovery effected is a commercial quantity and in view of the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, he was not entitled for bail and as the bail was opposed on behalf of the prosecution. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of the earlier bail application of the petitioner, two witnesses were examined by the prosecution and however, there are some discrepancies in their depositions. However, their evidence is yet to be appreciated by learned trial Court. At this stage, merely on the ground that there are some discrepancies in the depositions of witnesses, it cannot be said that petitioner is entitled for bail. Hence, in view of these facts and particularly in view of rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition for regular bail filed by petitioner- Yadvinder Singh @ Yadu is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial, as petitioner has been continuing in custody since 23.11.2009. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to learned trial Court for compliance. 24.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge