High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
RESHAM SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB - CRM-68763-2005  RD-P&H 153 (14 September 2005)
Cr. Misc. No.68763-M of 2005
Date of decision:6.1.2006
State of Punjab
Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.
S.S. Saron, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sukhwinder Singh, who is also accused in the same FIR, has been granted the concession of bail by the learned Special Judge, Jalandhar on Cr.M. No.68763-M/2005
20.10.2003. After perusing the record, it may appropriately be noticed that the petitioner had earlier filed Cr. Misc. No.32006-M of 2005 which was dismissed on 22.8.2005. As regards the fact of Sukhwinder Singh having been granted bail vide order dated 20.10.2003, it was observed that the same was hardly of any significance as the said order had been passed by taking into account that the recovery effected from said Sukhwinder Singh was non-commercial quantity. The order dated 20.10.2003 has been appended as Annexure-P.2 with the earlier Criminal Misc.
No.32006-M of 2005 and a perusal of the same shows that on 9.10.2003 poppy husk weighing 20 Kg. 500 Grams was recovered from the possession of Sukhwinder Singh, accused on the basis of disclosure statement made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The quantity of poppy husk recovered from the said accused, it was observed, was non commercial. Therefore, this aspect as to whether the petitioner being similarly placed as Sukhwinder Singh, accused who has been granted the concession of bail is not of much significance. Besides, in the case in hand three bags weighing 34.500 Kgs. of poppy husk were recovered from the Tata Sumo vehicle in which the petitioner was sitting on the rear seat. The said Sukhwinder Singh is not named in the FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that Cr.M. No.68763-M/2005
the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail on account of the proceedings having been considerably delayed. It is further contended that while declining the bail by this Court vide order dated 20.9.2004, it was observed that the trial Court shall make an endeavour to conclude the case as expeditiously as possible.
This Court has issued directions to the trial Court to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. However, merely because the case is pending in the circumstances of the present case would not entitle the petitioner to the concession of bail. As per contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner only one witness has been examined. In the circumstances, the learned trial Court shall take effective steps to conclude the trial of the case within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the above observations, the criminal miscellaneous petitions stands dismissed.
January 6, 2006. (S.S. Saron)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.