KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present is a third petition filed under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.13 dtd. 9/2/2021, under Ss. 22(c) and 25 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Raman, District Bathinda.

(2.) It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that although the present petition is a third successive bail petition but now the custody of the petitioner is 3 years and 2 months and it is a case where the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He further submitted that as per the allegation, the petitioner was found in possession of 10,000 tablets of Tramadol which although falls in the category of commercial quantity but considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the bar contained under Sec. 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply in the present case.

(3.) While substantiating his arguments, learned counsel submitted that it is a case where the charges were framed by the learned trial Court on 7/10/2021 and more than 2 years and 7 months have elapsed but no material witness has been examined till date and only 4 witnesses have been examined which includes the persons, who had deposited the samples and the official, who prepared the challan but no person, who had recovered the contraband or was a part of the police party has been examined till date. He submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and in fact earlier he was involved in one more case i.e. FIR No.122, dtd. 29/12/2020, under Ss. 22-C and 25 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station SGN Thermal Plant, District Bathinda, but he has since been acquitted in that case. He further submitted that delay in the trial is on the part of the prosecution in view of the fact that as many as 15 times, the learned trial Court was constrained to issue bailable warrants against the prosecution witnesses, who are none other but the police officials, who themselves have set the criminal law into motion and there is no justification as to why they are not coming forth to depose before the Court and in fact the reason for non-deposition is that the petitioner was falsely implicated in the present case.