IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-14114 of 2010 Date of decision : August 17, 2010 Kuldeep Singh ....Petitioner versus Assistant Commissioner (A.S.) Customs ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Vikram Chaudhari, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. HPS Ghuman, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Kuldeep Singh has filed the instant petition for bail in criminal complaint under sections 23, 29 & 30 of the NDPS Act, 1985, read with sections 489-A, 489-B & 489-C IPC, sections 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 and U/s 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 instituted by respondent i.e. Assistant Commissioner Customs. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that FIR Nos. 302 to 306 dated 23.12.2007 were registered against the petitioner and his co- accused under sections 411 and 414 IPC, section 25 of the Arms Act, sections 18 and 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) and section 3 of the Official Secrets Act. In those cases, the police alleged recovery of 5 mousers and 30 live cartridges from the petitioner and his co-accused. No other recovery of any contraband substance within the purview of NDPS Act nor recovery of counterfeit Criminal Misc. No. M-14114 of 2010 -2- currency was made from the petitioner and his co-accused. Subsequently, the respondent instituted criminal complaint against petitioner and his co- accused on the basis of statements allegedly recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no recovery of any incriminating article whatsoever has been made in the instant criminal complaint and that petitioner has already been granted bail in the aforesaid FIR case. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 23.12.2007 when he was arrested in FIR case and is in custody in the instant case since 1.1.2008 i.e. for more than two and a half years. It was contended that even in FIR case no recovery falling within the purview of NDPS Act or of counterfeit currency was made. Learned counsel for the respondent does not controvert the aforesaid factual position, while opposing prayer of the petitioner for bail. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Recovery of only arms and ammunition was made from the petitioner and his co- accused for which separate FIRs have been registered and they are facing trial in those cases and petitioner has already been granted bail in the FIR case. No recovery whatsoever was effected in the instant criminal complaint case. The petitioner is already in custody for more than two and half years in the instant case. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to comment anything on merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Amritsar. ( L.N. Mittal ) August 17, 2010 Judge 'dalbir'