Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055618
CRM-M-17626-2024 2024:PHHC:055618
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203
RM-M-17626-2024
C
Date of decision: 24.04.2024
Kuldeep Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Mr. H.S. Bhogal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab. ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.171, dated 04.09.2022, registered under Sections 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Tibba, DistrictLudhiana. 2. Learnedcounselcontendsthatthepetitionerisincustodyforthelast 1yearandmorethan7months.Hewasfalselyimplicatedinthecase.Thealleged recovery is not from his consciouspossession,asthebagthatwasrecoveredhad been thrown on the road. There is a delay of 11 days in sending samples to the FSL. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act were not complied with. Charges were framed in this case on 23.03.2023, however, none out of 16 prosecution witnesses have been examined, though 5 have been given up.ThepetitionerisinvolvedinothercasesundertheNDPSAct,whereinheison bail in one. Reliance is placed on thejudgmentofHon'bletheSupremeCourtin Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others,2012(2) SCC 382. 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 06:56:13 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055618 CRM-M-17626-2024 2024:PHHC:055618 -2- 3. The custody certificate dated 23.04.2024, filed by learned State counselistakenonrecord,asperwhich,thepetitionerisbehindbarsfor1year,7 months and 21 days. 4. LearnedStatecounselopposesthebailonthegroundthatcommercial quantityofcontrabandwasrecoveredfromthepetitioner,whowasapprehendedat the spot and is also involved in other cases under theNDPSAct.Heishowever unable to controvert the submissions made regarding the stage of the case and petitioner being on bail in one case. 5. Heard. 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accusedinthecaseinwhichhehasbeenchargedandothercircumstancessuchas possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No.6690/2022 decided on 25.01.2023 observed that in case of long custody period, involving quantity recoveredtobeofcommercialnature,wherethetrialisyettocommence,though charges had been framed, the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be dispensed with. In the case of Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022)2RCR(Crl.)706,theDivisionBenchofthisCourtobservedwithregardto achievingbalancebetweenrighttospeedytrialguaranteedunderArticle21ofthe ConstitutionofIndiaandrigorsofSection37ofNDPSAct.Similarly,inthecase of Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 06:56:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055618 CRM-M-17626-2024 2024:PHHC:055618 -3- No.4173/2022,decidedon04.08.2022,Hon'bletheSupremeCourtgrantedbailto the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trialinthenearfuture.InthecaseofMunasiMasih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, decided on 06.02.2023, this Court grantedbailtoafirstoffenderfromwhomcommercialquantityofcontrabandhad beenrecoveredandonly2outof13PWs havebeenexamined,byobservingthat inviewofdelayedtrial,therigorsofSection37ofNDPSActcanbedilutedtoan extentandthepetitionercanbegrantedbail,keepinginmindtherighttoaspeedy trial as envisaged Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 8. Keepinginviewthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,inparticular that the petitioner is in custody for last 1 year, 7 months and21days;onbailin one case under NDPS Act; charges were framed on23.03.2023;outofatotalof 16prosecutionwitnesses,nonehasbeenexaminedsofar;thetrialislikelytotake a considerable time, thus his further incarceration wouldbeviolativeofhisright enshrinedunderArticle21oftheConstitutionofIndiaandtherigorsofSection37 of NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mindtherighttoaspeedytrial,thus,the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed. 9. As a result, the present petition isallowed.Thepetitionerisordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/DutyMagistrateconcernedandsubjecttohisnotbeing required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) he petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the T trial. (ii) he petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution T witnesses. 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 06:56:14 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055618 CRM-M-17626-2024 2024:PHHC:055618 -4- (iii) T he petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (iv) T he petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offenceofwhich,heisanaccused,orforcommissionofwhich he is suspected of. (v) he petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, T threaten or promise to anypersonacquaintedwiththefactsof thecasesoastodissuadehim/herfromdisclosingsuchfactsto the Court or to any police officerortamperwiththeevidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobilenumberto theTrialCourtforthwithandshallnotchangethesametillthe conclusionofthetrialandincaseforanyreason,thepetitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done onlywithpriorintimationtothelearnedTrialCourt,statingthe reason for the same. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) T he trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 10. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 11. Inviewoftheabove,itisclarifiedthattheobservationsmadeherein are limited for thepurposeofpresentproceedingsandwouldnotbeconstruedas anopiniononthemeritsofthecaseandthetrialwouldproceedindependentlyof the aforesaid observations. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 2 4.04.2024 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 06:56:14 :::