Criminal Misc. No. M-31312 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-31312 of 2011 Date of decision : October 18, 2011 Gurmail Singh ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. HS Rakhra, Advocate, for the petitioner L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Gurmail singh has filed this petition for regular bail in case FIR No. 65 dated 27.5.2006, under section 15 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Raman, District Bathinda. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. According to prosecution version, 280 kgs of poppy husk was recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused, but the petitioner succeeded in escaping at the time of recovery whereas his two co-accused were caught at the spot and tried and convicted. The petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. Now the petitioner surrendered on 20.1.2011. Perusal of order Annexure P/10 passed by learned Special Judge reveals that the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender on 26.3.2007. Thereafter he moved petition for anticipatory bail in this Court but he went underground and could not be arrested. Criminal Misc. No. M-31312 of 2011 -2- In view of section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to bail as commercial quantity of poppy husk was recovered from the petitioner and his co-accused. In addition to the aforesaid, the petitioner remained absconding for more than four years and was even declared proclaimed offender. For this added reason also, the petitioner cannot be granted benefit of bail. Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the petitioner surrendered on 20.1.2011 and the challan against him was presented on 21.7.2011 i.e. after expiry of 180 days and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to bail in view of proviso to section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, Cr.P.C.). The contention apparently appears to be forceful but cannot be accepted. Challan against petitioner was presented in the year 2006 along with his two co-accused but at that time the petitioner had not been arrested as he had escaped. Now only supplementary challan has been presented against him pursuant to his surrender in the court. In addition to it, according to the prosecution version, the petitioner was taken in custody by the police on 5.2.2011 after obtaining production warrant from the court and computed from the said date even supplementary challan was presented within 180 days. Thus, examined from any angle the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed but without expressing any opinion on merits. ( L.N. Mittal ) October 18, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'