Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) BY this common order, both the petitions, viz. (1) Criminal Misc. No. M -1033 of 2011 preferred by Rajesh Kumar and (2) Criminal Misc. No. M -3668 of 2011 filed by Shakti Singh under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking regular bail to the Petitioners in case FIR No. 69 dated 04.08.2010 registered at Police Station Khnauri, District Sangrur under Section 18/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 shall be decided together.
(2.) IT is stated in the FIR that the police party was on a patrol duty for search of anti -social elements. When the police party reached on the bridge of Ghaggar Andana, then three persons were spotted standing near one motorcycle. They were apprehended. They were holding one big plastic box. They disclosed their names as Deepak Singla alias Deepu son of Prem Singla, Shakti Singh son of Zile Singh and Rajesh Kumar son of Parkash. It is stated that from their possession 2.52 kilograms of opium was recovered. Counsel for the Petitioners have relied upon an order dated 5th January, 2011 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. M -35029 of 2010 titled as 'Deepak Singla alias Deepu v. State of Punjab Criminal Misc. No. M -35029 of 2010', whereby Deepak Singla alias Deepu co -accused of the Petitioners, was released on regular bail. The relevant portion of the order dated 5th January, 2011 reads as under: Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the recovery allegedly effected from the Petitioner is 2.520 Kgs of opium while commercial quantity is 2.5 Kgs. He submits that in fact weighment was made along with the container, due to which weight of the contraband has been shown higher than the actually recovered. Even otherwise he contends that the recovery is marginally higher than the commercial quantity and in such circumstance the Petitioner is entitled to be released on bail pending trial. Reliance has been placed on case reported as 'Darshan Singh alias Darshi v. State of Punjab, 2004 (4) RCR 505. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for bail on the ground that recovery effected from the Petitioner is of commercial quantity. He, however, does not dispute the fact that recovery is only marginally higher than the commercial quantity. Heard. In view of the case reported as Darshan Singh (supra), the recovery being marginal higher than the commercial quantity and the Petitioner being in custody for the last more than five months, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail as no useful purpose will be served by detaining him in custody during the pendency of the trial as the trial. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is allowed and the Petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Sangrur.
(3.) IN view of the order aforesaid passed by a Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. No. M -35029 of 2010, the Petitioners are also entitled to be released on regular bail. Accordingly, both the present petitions are allowed and the Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail, to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur.;