Sumit Makkar vs State Of Punjab on 20 February, 2024

Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sumit Makkar vs State Of Punjab on 20 February, 2024

Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul

Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul

           CRM-M-7742-2024                                                 -1-

                                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                                            Decided on : 20.02.2024

           Sumit Makkar                                               ...... Petitioner


           State of Punjab                                            ...... Respondent


           Present : Mr. Saksham Malhotra, Advocate
                     for the petitioner.

                               Mr. Amit Rana, Sr. DAG, Punjab.


           Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral)

1. This is the second petition filed by the petitioner seeking

concession of regular bail in case FIR No.96 dated 26.04.2022 under

Sections 22, 22(c), 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 22(c)

and 29 added later on) registered at Police Station Jamalpur District


2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that

falsity of the prosecution version is evident from the fact that the

alleged recovery of 18100 intoxicant tablets containing salt Tramadol

hydrochloride and Alphrasafe containing salt Alprazolam and 14100

intoxicant capsules containing salt Paracetamol diclomine

hydrochloride (totalling 32200) were effected from the room, which

was neither owned by the petitioner nor had been rented out to him.

2024.02.21 14:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-7742-2024 -2-


Learned counsel has submitted that after the petitioner was arrested

on 26.04.2022, challan was presented on 15.10.2022, however, till

date only two prosecution witnesses had been examined and that

too only partially. Hence, there was no likelihood of the trial

concluding in the near future. It has also been submitted that the

petitioner has clean antecedents as he is not involved in any other

criminal case much less under the NDPS Act.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer

made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from ASI

Madan Lal, has however disputed the submissions made by the

counsel opposite and submitted that the statement of the landlord of

the room had been recorded during investigation wherein he had

categorically stated that the room in question from where alleged

recovery was effected had been rented out to all the accused including

the petitioner for which they were paying Rs.3,200/- per month as rent.

Learned State counsel has further submitted that a specific secret

information was received with respect to the involvement of all the

accused including the petitioner in the crime in question and it was only

thereafter and that too after complying the mandatory provisions of

NDPS Act, the raid was conducted by the police and the petitioner was

apprehended at the spot. Learned State counsel has further submitted

that after the charges were framed on 18.08.2023, trial had been

proceeding at a considerably good pace as two prosecution witnesses

had since been examined and the next date of hearing fixed before the

2024.02.21 14:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
CRM-M-7742-2024 -3-

trial Court is 06.03.2024 when some more prosecution witnesses are

likely to be examined.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the material placed on record.

5. Prima facie, there are serious and specific allegations

against the petitioner coupled with the fact that the recovery of the

contraband effected from him in the present case is huge, which is much

higher than the minimum classified as commercial quantity.

6. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove,

this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of regular bail

to the petitioner. Accordingly, the instant petition stands dismissed.

7. However, it is made clear that anything observed

hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on

the merits of the case.

           20.02.2024                                     (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
           sonia                                                  JUDGE

                               Whether speaking/reasoned:      Yes/No
                               Whether reportable :            Yes/No

2024.02.21 14:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *