Dismissed

Gurdev Singh @ Gopi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Mar 2010CRM-M/4534/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS case. The court rejected the argument that the FSL report reduced the commercial quantity below the threshold, citing the seriousness of drug possession. Trial was remanded for expedited conclusion within three months.

What did the court decide?

Petition for regular bail dismissed. Trial court directed to expedite trial and conclude within three months from March 23, 2010.

Gurdev Singh @ Gopi Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

Crl.M.No.M 4534 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M 4534 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 19, 2010

Gurdev Singh @ Gopi

.....Petitioner

The State of Punjab

......Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Dinesh Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Abhishek Chautala, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.103 dated 25.4.2009, under Sections 21/61/85 NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Rajpura.

¶15

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

¶16

Allegations against the petitioner-accused are that he was found in possession of 600 grams of smack, which is a commercial quantity.

¶17

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioneraccused that as per report FSL Diacetyl Morphine was found to the extent of 35.46% only and hence actual quantity of the recovered smack comes to 216 grams which is less than the commercial quantity as the commercial quantity is 250 grams and above. He has also placed reliance upon E.Micheal Raj v. Intelligence Officer, Narcotic Control Bureau (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 558. It has further been contended that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 25.4.2009 and that only one witness has been examined so far.

¶18

Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the ground that recovery effected is of commercial quantity. It

¶19

-2-

¶20

Crl.M.No.M 4534 of 2010 (O&M)

¶21

has further been contended that one witness has already been examined and that case is fixed for remaining evidence of the prosecution for 23.3.2010 and hence trial can be expedited.

¶22

I have considered all the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶23

Even if it is taken that actual quantity of smack recovered from the petitioner-accused comes to 216 grams, he is not entitled for bail, at this stage. Allegations against the petitioner-accused are serious in nature. The smack recovered from the petitioner-accused could be utilised for intoxicating many youths.

¶24

It has been contended by learned State counsel that petitioner is likely to indulge in this type of activity again and that he is also likely to abscond, if released on bail.

¶25

In view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition for regular bail filed by Gurdev Singh @ Gopi, is dismissed.

¶26

However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as petitioner has been continuing in custody since 25.4.2009 and efforts be made to conclude the same within three months from 23.3.2010, i.e., the next date fixed in this case.

¶27

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶28

19.3.2010 meenu

Gurdev Singh @ Gopi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurdev Singh @ Gopi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Vinay Mehndirata and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Rajesh Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Rajinder Nath Verma and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Heera Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baljinder Singh @ Gandhi Vs State of Punjab