IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-7254 of 2010 Date of Decision: April 29, 2010 Baljit @ Bagga .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Parvez Chug, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Rajni Gupta, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.295 dated 28.10.2009 under Sections 225-A, 343, 384 IPC; Sections 29 & 21 of Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985; and Sections 7 & 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 registered with Police Station, Banga, District Shaheed Bhagat Singh Nagar (Nawanshahr). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and in such circumstances, case of the petitioner is at par with that of co-accused who have been allowed bail. Crl. Misc. No. M-7254 of 2010 [2] Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from Surinder Kumar, Assistant Sub Inspector, states that case of the petitioner cannot be considered at par with the case of the co- accused who are police officials. The petitioner has been indulging in sale of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. The petitioner is involved in two other cases under the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 wherein recovery has been effected from the petitioner, and if released on bail, the petitioner is going to indulge in similar activities. Considering the fact that petitioner is involved in two other cases also, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner is not entitled to bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. The petition is dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial in view of the custody of the petitioner. (AJAI LAMBA) April 29, 2010 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?