Dismissed

Manpreet Singh @ Manna v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Jul 2021CRM-M/11099/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court dismissed the sixth bail petition of the petitioner in a criminal case involving NDPS and Arms Act offences. Acknowledging the petitioner admitted two prior NDPS convictions, the court found no ground for bail at the advanced trial stage. The trial court was directed to expedite proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The petition for grant of regular bail is dismissed.

Manpreet Singh @ Manna Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT ASHOK KUMAR 2021.08.02 15:11 CHANDIGARH I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 203 CRM-M-11099-2021 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.07.2021 MANPREET SINGH @ MANNA ..Petitioner

¶2

Versus

¶3

STATE OF PUNJAB ..Respondent

¶4

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

¶5

Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Saurav Khurana, DAG, Punjab. ***

¶6

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

¶7

��

¶8

��

¶9

This is the sixth petition for grant of bail, pending trial, in a

¶10

criminal case arising from FIR No.38 dated 07.08.2018, registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station STF, Phase-4, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

¶11

The previous petition i.e. application No.5 was dismissed on 28.10.2020 with the following order:-

¶12

This is fifth petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in a criminal case arising from FIR No. 8 dated 07.08.2018, registered under Section 21 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1985 Act”) and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station STF, Phase-4, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.

¶13

As per the case of the prosecution, 290 grams of heroin was recovered from various accused. On 11.09.2020, when the Deputy Advocate General, Punjab made a statement on the

¶14

CRM-M-11099-2021 (O&M)

¶15

2 ASHOK KUMAR 2021.08.02 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and basis of an affidavit that the petitioner stands convicted in two integrity of this document

¶16

cases under the 1985 Act, Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner has been acquitted and never convicted. He sought time to justify the stand taken, hence, the case was adjourned.

¶17

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that his statement on 11.09.2020 was factually incorrect and the petitioner has been convicted under NDPS Act 1985 in two criminal cases i.e. FIR No. 96 dated 25.08.2002 and FIR No. 96 dated 20.08.2011.

¶18

Learned counsel for the State has further pointed out that the petitioner is a habitual offender involved in eight cases including the present one. He has further pointed out that the prosecution has already recorded the deposition of 18 witnesses, out of 22 witnesses proposed to be examined.

¶19

Keeping in view the advance stage of the trial of the case, no ground to grant the concession of regular bail is made out. Hence, the present petition is dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been requested to remain careful in future.

¶20

The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that

¶21

even after lapse of a period of 8 months, the prosecution has failed to conclude its evidence.

¶22

During this period, the Courts were working in a restricted functioning mode due to the spread of Covid-19 pandemic.

¶23

The petitioner already stands convicted in two different cases

¶24

under the NDPS Act, 1985. In this case, the total recovery is 290 grams

¶25

heroin which falls in commercial category.

¶26

CRM-M-11099-2021 (O&M)

¶27

3 ASHOK KUMAR 2021.08.02 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

Therefore, no ground to grant bail is made out. Hence,

¶29

dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court is requested to make sincere

¶30

endeavours for expeditious conclusion of the trial.

¶31

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

¶32

disposed of.

¶33

27.07.2021 ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶34

(ANIL KSHETARPAL) JUDGE

Manpreet Singh @ Manna v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manpreet Singh @ Manna 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharambir Vs Anita & Ors.

General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak Vs Anita and Others

Dinesh Yadav Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Ravleen Mongia Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank and Ors.

Gaurav Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Kanto Vs State of Punjab