CRM No.M-27960 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-13.10.2010 Gurvinder Singh alias Gora s/o Harbhajan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ashit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of regular bail and lost in the court of Special Judge, petitioner Gurvinder Singh s/o Harbhajan Singh, has directed the present petition for regular bail, in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.255 dated 27.4.2009 on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 15 and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, by the police of Police Station Assandh, Distt.Karnal, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, according to the prosecution that on 27.4.2009, 19 Kgs. of poppy husk was recovered from the main accused Balwinder Singh and a criminal case was registered against him. It was claimed that during the course of investigation, Balwinder Singh made a disclosure statement that he had purchased the poppy husk from petitioner Gurvinder Singh. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the present case was registered against the petitioner-accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the CRM No.M-27960 of 2010 2 entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 5. What is not disputed here is that nothing was recovered from the petitioner. He was arrested and earlier allowed bail by the Special Judge, vide order dated 24.7.2009. As he did not appear in the court on 19.7.2010, therefore, his bail was cancelled. Learned counsel has contended that the petitioner could not appear in the court on the said date as he was in judicial custody in some other case and his absence was not intentional but beyond his control. The fact that the petitioner was in judicial custody on 19.7.2010, has been acknowledged by the Investigating Officer. The petitioner was re-arrested in this case on 16.8.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. The conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. The apprehension of learned State counsel that the petitioner will again abscond, can be redeemed, if he is directed to execute two surety bonds of heavy amount. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of same amount to the satisfaction of Special Judge, Karnal. 8. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 13.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge