GURMEET SINGH ALIAS MEET Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Gurmeet Singh Alias Meet
Union Territory Of JAndK
Click here to view full judgement.
Rajnesh Oswal,J. -
(1.)The present application has been filed by the applicant for grant of bail after his bail was rejected by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu vide order dated 16.05.2020. It is stated in the application that the applicant was arrested in November, 2019 in FIR bearing No. 132/2019 registered with Police Station, Gangyal, Jammu for commission of offences under sections 8, 21 and 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short the NDPS Act). It is further stated that the prosecution story is that on 11.11.2019 the applicant was found in suspicious circumstances near Bhargava Resort and on seeing the police, he tried to run away but he was apprehended by the Police along with a bag which he was carrying and on conducting the search of the bag, 100 grams of heroin was recovered from the possession of the applicant. After the completion of the investigation, final report in terms of section 173 Cr. P. C. was presented before the court of Learned Sessions Judge, Jammu, that was subsequently transferred to the court of Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. It is further stated that vide order dated 27.12.2019, the trial court framed the charges against the applicant and the prosecution was directed to lead evidence. Only one witness, namely, Shah Jahan has been examined by the prosecution on 17.01.2020. Thereafter the case was fixed for 04.02.2020, 25.02.2020 and 20.03.2020 but no witness was examined by the prosecution and thereafter due to COVID-19 pandemic, no evidence has been recorded by the trial court. Faced with such a situation, the applicant filed an application before the trial court for grant of bail on the ground that the quantity of the contraband recovered from the applicant falls within the category of intermediate quantity and rigors of section 37 of the NDPS Act are not applicable but the said application could not be decided by the trial court and during the lockdown, the wife of the applicant on behalf of the husband had again moved an application before the trial court through her counsel through virtual mode and the trial court vide order dated 16.05.2020 dismissed the said application. Hence the present bail application.
(2.)The respondents were put to notice and they have filed detailed objections. The respondents have mainly objected the bail application on the ground that the offence so committed is very heinous and is against the society and the menace of drug abuse, drug addiction and drug trafficking has touched the alarming situation in the society so the applicant does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.
(3.)Mr. Prince Khanna, learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant has been in custody for the last more than 10 months and only one witness has been examined by the prosecution till date and due to COVID-19 pandemic trial has come to stand still and also that there is no likelihood of resumption of the normal working of the courts in near future.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.