Disposed¶34

Gaurav Arora v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2025CRM-M/2353/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRM-M-2353-2025; Gaurav Arora v. State of Punjab; Anoop Chitkara J.; Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh; decision 02.04.2025; Section 439 CrPC regular bail; FIR No. 95 dated 25.02.2020 PS City Barnala District Barnala; Sections 25/29 NDPS Act; Sections 467/468/471/120B IPC; trial at fag end; arguments concluded; transfer to another Special Judge; expedite trial; no unnecessary adjournments; bail cancellation for adjournment-seeking accused; Special Court Barnala; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail not granted; petition disposed of with directions to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously, to the parties not to seek unnecessary adjournments, and with liberty to the trial court to cancel the bail of any accused seeking an unnecessary adjournment. ¶34

Gaurav Arora Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶34

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, an accused incarcerated in FIR No. 95 dated 25.02.2020 of PS City Barnala (Sections 25/29 NDPS Act; 467/468/471/120B IPC), is entitled to regular bail under Section 439 CrPC when the trial is at the fag end and pronouncement of judgment may be delayed owing to transfer of the case to another Special Judge. +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

Since the matter is at the fag end of trial, the court does not deem it appropriate to interfere at this stage (regular bail declined), except requesting the trial court to expedite the matter.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

The petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously.

¶34

Key takeaways

Parties are directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments, and if any accused seeks an unnecessary adjournment, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Anoop Chitkara, J.), decision dated 02.04.2025 - Gaurav Arora v. State of Punjab, CRM-M-2353-2025: Accused in FIR No. 95 dated 25.02.2020, PS City Barnala (Sections 25/29 NDPS Act; Sections 467/468/471/120B IPC), sought regular bail under Section 439 CrPC when the trial before the Special Court, Barnala was at the fag end - arguments had concluded for most co-accused and the matter stood transferred to another Special Judge for arguments afresh. Held: with the trial at the fag end, the Court did not deem it appropriate to interfere at that stage; the petition was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously; parties were directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments, and the trial court was given liberty to cancel the bail of any accused who sought an unnecessary adjournment.

¶1

CRM-M-2353-2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

245

¶5

CRM-M-2353-2025

¶6

Date of Decision: 02.04.2025

Gaurav Arora

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent

¶11

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

Present: Mr. S.K. Passi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Akshay Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

¶15

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶16

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
95	25.02.2020	City Barnala,	District 25/29 of	NDPS Act and
		Barnala	467/468/471/	120B IPC

¶17

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this

¶18

Court seeking regular bail under Section 439 CrPC.

¶19

On 24.03.2025, the Judge Special Court, Barnala has passed the following order:-

¶20

“Today, accused Krishan Arora has not come present, however, learned proxy counsel for the said accused filed an application for exempting the personal appearance of said accused, which is allowed for today only, for the reasons mentioned therein. No DW is present.

¶21

Arguments concluded on behalf of accused namely Mohan Lal, Balwinder Kumar, Ishu Kumar, Naresh Mittal, Prem Kumar, Krishan Arora, Gaurav Arora, Harish Bhatia, Taiyab Qureshi, Hardeep Kumar, Ved Ram, Shakeel, Rupesh Kumar, Yogesh Kumar and Rajinder Kumar. To come up on 27.03.2025 for remaining DWs, if any.

¶22

Ld. counsel for the accused Imran is again directed to produce the defence witnesses, if any, and for arguments on the date fixed.”

¶23

¶24

Thereafter on 27.03.2025, trial Court has passed the following order:-

¶25

ANJU RANI 2025.04.04 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

¶26

CRM-M-2353-2025

¶27

¶28

“Today, accused Krishan Arora has not come present. however, learned proxy counsel for the said accused filed an application for exempting the personal appearance of said accused, which is allowed for today only, for the reasons mentioned therein.

¶29

No DW is present. To come up on 01.04.2025 for remaining DWs, if any Ld. counsel for the accused Imran is again directed to produce the defence witnesses, if any, and for arguments on the date fixed.”

¶30

Petitioner’s counsel submits that now the matter has been transferred to

¶31

another Special Judge for further hearing and all the accused are required to address arguments afresh in that court which could delay the pronouncement of judgment and prayed for bail.

¶32

On the other hand, State counsel submits that now the ball is in the Court of petitioner-accused and it is for them to conclude their case and State has no role in delay of trial.

¶33

Given above, since the matter is at the fag end, this court does not deem it appropriate to interfere at this stage except to request the trial Court to expedite the matter.

¶34

Given above, petition is disposed of with direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously. Parties are directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment and in case, any of the accused seek unnecessary adjournment, the trial court shall be at liberty to cancel his bail. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

¶35

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 02.04.2025. anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable? No

¶36

ANJU RANI 2025.04.04 12:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh

Gaurav Arora v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Arora v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalita Devi Vs State of Haryana

Bobby Wadhwa Vs State of Punjab

Rupinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Vikas Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Varinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurkirat Singh Vs State of Punjab