AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
This is second petition for bail, filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the ‘Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023’. This petition pertains to a case arising out of FIR No.57 dated 26.05.2017, Police Station Bilga, District Jalandhar, for the commission of offence punishable under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
Briefly stating the facts emerging from record are that the FIR of this case came into being at the instance of ‘ASI Gyan Ishar Singh’. It was reported by the above named police officer that on 26.05.2017 at about 6.40 P.M when he along with other police officials was discharging patrolling duty, on the basis of suspicion the petitioner was apprehended and from his possession 100 grams of intoxicating powder, i.e. ‘Alprazolam’, was recovered.
It is case of the prosecution that on recovery of above mentioned contraband, requisite formalities with regard to seizure and sealing of contraband, slapping of FIR and formal arrest of the accused were completed and further investigation taken-up.
Notice of motion.
Since advance notice has already been served upon the State, Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab, has appeared on behalf of respondent-State. Hence, service of notice upon the State is hereby dispensed with. He has filed custody certificate of the petitioner. The same be taken on record. No formal reply has been filed by the State. However, the learned State counsel has orally opposed the present petition.
Heard.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has already suffered incarceration for a period of more than two years and eleven months, and that in the present case although he was declared a proclaimed offender, but after re-arrest he has already served imprisonment for a period of more than ten months and eight days. It has been further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that manner in which the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender was not in accordance with law, and that a defective procedure was adopted by the learned trial Court. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that with regard to the plea that he was declared a proclaimed offender FIR under Section 174-A of IPC has already been lodged and the petitioner will be facing the consequence for the same.
The learned State counsel has controverted the above mentioned arguments. According to learned State counsel the petitioner is a person who has been declared a proclaimed offender not on one occasion, but on two occasions. It has been contended by the learned State counsel that in addition to above, it is also pertinent to mention here that in another case, too, which was faced by the petitioner, the petitioner was declared a proclaimed offender. According to the learned State counsel a person who has already been declared proclaimed offender on three occasions, by misusing the concession of bail, is not entitled to the benefit of bail.
The record has been perused carefully.
A perusal of the record shows that following are the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration for a decision in the present petition:-
that this is second petition for regular bail filed by the petitioner, and from the date of dismissal of first bail petition no significant change in attending circumstance has taken place;
ii) that on the ground of delay in trial also the petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of bail. The delay is attributable to the petitioner himself as he jumped the bail on two occasions and on both the occasion he was declared proclaimed offender;
iii) that the past conduct of the petitioner who misused the concession of bail to the maximum possible limit, on two occasion, renders him ineligible for benefit of bail at this stage.
Taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the abovementioned factors, irrespective of the fact whether proper process for declaring him proclaimed offender has been adopted or not, it is hereby held that the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. Hence, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, the same is hereby dismissed, accordingly.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of, accordingly.