IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-26587 of 2011 Date of decision : 2.12.2011 Parminder Singh alias Tidda ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent. Present : Mr. S.K. Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 17.11.2009 for the offences under Sections 15, 25 and 60 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (“NDPS Act”- for short). The earlier application filed by the petitioner for grant of bail was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 17.9.2010 (Annexure P7). The prosecution case is that SI Rajesh Kumar, SHO Police Station Machhiwara, District Ludhiana along with other police officials was present at Mahadipur roundabout for carrying out checking of suspects. During checking, one red colour Scorpio car came from the side of village Gadhi Bet. It was about 9.30 a.m. and the car was signalled to stop. The driver of the car had tried to reverse back the car. However, SI Rajesh Kumar along with other police officials stopped the car and three persons were found sitting in it. One young man with his hair cut short namely Raman Kumar alias Sairy was known to SI Rajesh Kumar and the police CRM No. M-26587 of 2011 [2] party. He after opening back door of the car ran away towards the fields. Hawaldar Darshan Lal and HC Pardeep Kumar were sent to chase him. On the asking of the names of the other two persons, the driver of the car disclosed his name as Parminder Singh alias Tidda (petitioner) and the person sitting on his left seat disclosed his name as Malkit Singh Shekhon. On search of the car, two bags weighing 28 kgs each of poppy husk were recovered. The petitioner is in custody since 6.11.2009. His earlier application for bail was dismissed by this Court on 17.9.2010 (Annexure P7). However, in this period of two years, the prosecution has examined only three witnesses out of twelve witnesses cited by it. Learned State counsel has placed on record the interim orders and the statements of witnesses that have been recorded. On the last date of hearing (i.e. 4.11.2011), learned State counsel had submitted that the trial Court is not taking effective steps. However, perusal of the orders shows that it is witnesses who are the police officials and are not appearing. On 23.11.2011 which was the last date fixed in the case before the learned trial Court, Inspector Rajesh Kumar was bound down for the said date, but he did not come. He sent his request which was considered and allowed and he has now been summoned for 7.12.2011. ASI Darshan Singh was present for his further cross-examination, but the accused requested for an adjournment as their defence counsel was not available. Another Head Constable though served had not come, rather he sent his request which was considered and allowed. He has now been summoned for 7.2.2011. Therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court is not taking effective steps, rather the prosecution is taking its time. CRM No. M-26587 of 2011 [3] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that apart from the present case, there are twelve other cases and out of those cases, the petitioner has been acquitted in nine cases; one case is pending in appeal, one case is pending trial and in one case the petition for quashing the FIR is pending. It is also submitted that in the inquiry conducted by ACP, Ludhiana South, the petitioner was found innocent. However, the report was not accepted by DIG, Ludhiana Range. In the present case, the prosecution is to establish and prove its case which relates to recovery of 56 kgs of poppy husk. Out of twelve witnesses cited by prosecution, only three have been examined till date. The petitioner is in custody for the last more than two years. The trial in the case is not making any substantial progress. In respect of the other cases pending against the petitioner, he has been acquitted in most of them. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, even though the earlier application of the petitioner seeking bail was declined, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is granted the concession of bail. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 2, 2011 amit