Crl. Misc. No. M-27407 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-27407 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.10.2010 Mahabir Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, 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 Addl. Session Judge, petitioner-Mahabir Singh has applied for regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Raj Kumar @ Raju son of Ramesh Kumar, , vide FIR No. 732 dated 11.12.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 17, 27-A, 61 and 85 NDPS Act, by the police of Police Station, Sirsa, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 11.12.2009 police party was present near Railway Crossing, Kanganpur Road. In the meantime, accused- Raj Kumar @ Raju was seen coming having a white colour bag. On the basis of suspicion his bag was searched. The prosecution claimed that in the wake of search 2.5 kg opium was recovered from the bag of main accused-Raj Kumar @ Raju. The case of the prosecution further proceeds that main accused-Raj Kumar @ Raju disclosed in police custody that the recovered opium was supplied to him by the petitioner. On the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, the Crl. Misc. No. M-27407 of 2010 (O&M) -2- present case was registered against the petitioner, 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 deep consideration of the matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 5. What is not disputed here is that the nothing was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. The entire (2.5 kg) opium was recovered from the bag/possession of main accused Raj Kumar @ Raju. It not a matter of dispute that main accused-Raj Kumar @ Raju has already been allowed regular bail by the Special Judge. Petitioner was arrested on 13.12.2009, since then he is in judicial custody. As only one PW has been examined by the prosecution, therefore, the conclusion of the trial will naturally take long time. 6. In this manner, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described 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 regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 8. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for regular bail. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) October 12, 2010 Judge naresh.k