RAJWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Rajwant Singh, son of Subeg Singh, resident of Village Ratta Khera, Police Station, Gulha, District Kaithal, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 18 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for brevity, 'the NDPS Act'), in a case arising out of FIR No. 275, dated 25.8.2012, registered at Police Station, Tripuri, District Patiala.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is behind the bars from 25.8.2012; only 100 gms opium and 75 tablets (of unknown salt) were allegedly recovered from the petitioner; the petitioner moved an application for grant of bail before the learned Special Judge, Patiala, on 23.2.2013 and thereafter an application under Section 36A of the NDPS Act was presented by the investigating agency before the learned Special Judge, Patiala, for extension of time in presentation of the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.); and that the petitioner was entitled to bail in view of the provisions contained in Section 36A of the NDPS Act and Section 167(2), Cr.P.C.. To elaborate his submissions, learned counsel further contended that the learned Special Judge was not competent to enhance the limitation enumerated in Section 36A of the Act after expiry of 180 days after the arrest of the petitioner. He further submitted that even if the whole case of the prosecution was taken at its face value, then also the allegations are that 100 gms of opium and 75 tablets of unknown salt were recovered from the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State on instructions from HC Nachhatar Singh of Police Station, Tripuri, Patiala, submits that now the chargesheet has been submitted on 10.4.2013, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he (petitioner) be admitted to bail for non-compliance of Section 36A of the NDPS Act and Section 167(2), Cr.P.C., is not tenable. However, he fairly concedes that the petitioner is neither required not involved in any other case.