Skip to content


Swaran Singh @ Pappi Vs. State of Punjab - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Punjab and Haryana High Court

Decided On

Appellant

Swaran Singh @ Pappi

Respondent

State of Punjab

Excerpt:


.....stands convicted and sentenced. he further states that out of the crm m-17270 of 2014 -2- thirteen witnesses cited by the prosecution, one has already been examined and the next date fixed before the trial court for recording of further evidence is 13.8.2014. taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner already stood convicted in two other cases under the provisions of ndps act, this court is of the considered view that he does not deserve the concession of bail. however, directions can be issued to the trial court to expedite the trial as the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two years and only one witness has been examined by the prosecution so far. resultantly, the petition is dismissed. however, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and conclude it preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. ( t.p.s.mann ) july 08, 2014 judge ajay-1 kumar-i ajay 2014.07.09 22:29 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh

Judgment:


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-17270 of 2014 Date of Decision : July 08, 2014 Swaran Singh @ Pappi .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN Present : Mr.Gurpal Singh, Advocate for Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate Mr.A.S.Kler, Assistant A.G., Punjab T.P.S.MANN, J.

(Oral) This is the second petition filed by the petitioner for the grant of regular bail, the fiRs.one having been dismissed on 12.12.2012.

As per the prosecution, the petitioner was found in possession of 250 grams of smack at the time of his apprehension.

After obtaining instructions from HC Harnek Singh, learned State counsel has informed the Court that apart from the present case, the petitioner was involved in two more cases under the provisions of the NDPS Act in which he already stands convicted and sentenced.

He further states that out of the CRM M-17270 of 2014 -2- thirteen witnesses cited by the prosecution, one has already been examined and the next date fixed before the trial Court for recording of further evidence is 13.8.2014.

Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner already stood convicted in two other cases under the provisions of NDPS Act, this Court is of the considered view that he does not deserve the concession of bail.

However, directions can be issued to the trial Court to expedite the trial as the petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than two years and only one witness has been examined by the prosecution so far.

Resultantly, the petition is dismissed.

However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial of the case and conclude it preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

( T.P.S.MANN ) July 08, 2014 JUDGE ajay-1 Kumar-I Ajay 2014.07.09 22:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //