CCR petition dismissed; bail denied due to lack of parity with co-accused. Petitioner in custody since Aug 2013 for 70gms powder. Court directed trial completion within six months and production of prosecution witnesses.
Trial to be concluded within six months; prosecution witnesses to be produced expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M-10962-2014 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-10962-2014 (O&M). Decided on: August 19, 2014.
Manjit Singh
..... Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent(s)
*** * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.S.K.Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.**
Mr.Ankur Jain, AAG., Punjab.
M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).
Petitioner has been in custody w.e.f., 16.8.2013 for
having been found in possession of 70 gms. of intoxicating powder.
Counsel for the petitioner seeks parity with coaccused from whom 80 gms. of intoxicating powder was recovered.
After hearing the counsel for the petitioner and going through the report of FSL in case of petitioner and his coaccused, it transpires that the intoxicating powder recovered from the petitioner contained diphenoxylate hydrochloride for which commercial quantity is 50 gms.
So far as the recovery from the co-accused of the petitioner is concerned, it contained nitrozepam for which the commercial quantity prescribed is 500 gms.
1
RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2014.08.20 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CRM-M-10962-2014 (O&M)
Finding no parity between the case of the petitioner and his co-accused, I do not find any ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
Counsel for the petitioner at this stage, has submitted that a period of one year has passed but no witness has been examined.
This petition is dismissed. However, a direction is issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial within a period of six months. In case the trial is not concluded within the said period , it will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court again.
The prosecution agency is directed to produce the witnesses expeditiously. The trial Court will make an attempt to conclude the trial by giving short date of hearing and a fair opportunity to produce the defence evidence within above period.
(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE
August 19, 2014. rka
2
RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2014.08.20 17:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner having been in custody for over a year due to possession of narcotic substance.
Whether there is parity between the petitioner's case and that of co-accused to justify granting bail.
Manjit Singh
State of Punjab
M.M.S. BEDI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
