Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Surjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 2024

Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064822



CRM-M-11961-2024                         -1-



203
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                            CRM-M-11961-2024
                                                     Date of decision: 09.05.2024

SURJIT SINGH                                                         ...Petitioner

                                    VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB                                                    ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:-    Ms. Rajwinder Kaur Sandhu, Advocate for
             Mr. G. S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab.

                   ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.254 dated 07.09.2022, under Sections 15, 29, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City-1, Abohar, District Fazilka, Punjab.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody for about 1 year and 8 months and the allegations against the petitioner were pertaining to 92 kgs. of poppy husk. She further submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case and even otherwise also, charges in the present case were framed by the learned trial Court on 18.04.2023 and till date only 2 prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 17 cited prosecution witnesses and those 2 witnesses who 1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-05-2024 03:49:26 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064822 CRM-M-11961-2024 -2- have been examined are also formal witnesses and none of the material witnesses has been examined.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, [2022 (10) SCC 51] and contended that when there is a long custody, which is not attributable to the accused and the delay has been caused by the prosecution, then Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are affected. She also referred to another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain versus State (NCT of Delhi)", 2023 AIR (SC) 1648, wherein the scope of Section 37 of the NDPS Act vis-a-vis Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been discussed by taking a serious view with regard to long trial. She further referred to the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dheeraj Kumar Shukla versus The State of Uttar Pradesh", 2023 SCC Online SC 918 and "Rabi Prakash versus The State of Odisha", Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169 of 2023 to contend that long custody itself is a ground for grant of bail notwithstanding the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. She also submitted that considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner may be considered for the grant of regular bail.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab submitted on instructions from ASI Sukhwinder Singh that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody for about 1 year and 8 months and after the framing of the charges by the learned trial Court on 18.04.2023, only two formal witnesses have been examined. He further submitted that it is also correct that the 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-05-2024 03:49:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064822 CRM-M-11961-2024 -3- petitioner has clean antecedents and he is not involved in any other case. He has however submitted that since the quantity recovered from the petitioner was 92 kgs. of poppy husk, which falls in the category of commercial quantity, the prayer of the petitioner is hit by the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The petitioner is in custody for about 1 year and 8 months and more than one year has elapsed after the framing of the charges and only two formal witnesses have been examined but none of the witnesses who was part of the police party has been examined till date. The petitioner is stated to be not involved in any other case and has clean antecedents.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra) has discussed this serious issue with regard to delay in trial and its effect on the Right to Life of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Para 49 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-

"49. Sub-section (1) mandates courts to continue the proceedings on a day-to-day basis till the completion of the evidence. Therefore, once a trial starts, it should reach the logical end. Various directions have been issued by this Court not to give unnecessary adjournments resulting in the witnesses being won over. However, the non-compliance of Section 309 continues with gay abandon. Perhaps courts alone cannot be faulted as there are multiple reasons that lead to such adjournments. Though the section makes adjournments and that too not for a longer time period as an exception, they become the norm.

We are touching upon this provision only to show that any delay on the part of the court or the prosecution would certainly violate Article 21. This is more so when the accused person is under incarceration. This provision must be applied inuring to the benefit of the accused while 3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-05-2024 03:49:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064822 CRM-M-11961-2024 -4- considering the application for bail. Whatever may be the nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision against an accused or a convict under custody or incarceration, would be violative of Article 21. While the courts will have to endeavour to complete at least the recording of the evidence of the private witnesses, as indicated by this Court on quite a few occasions, they shall make sure that the accused does not suffer for the delay occasioned due to no fault of his own".

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain's case (supra) has dealt with this issue with regard to delay in trial and long custody of the accused person vis-a-vis the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment contained in para Nos.19 and 20 are reproduced as under:-

19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be proved.

The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-05-2024 03:49:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064822 CRM-M-11961-2024 -5- by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (supra) has observed as under:-

"3. It appears that some of the occupants of the 'Honda City' Car including Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya have since been released on regular bail. It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed."

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash's case (supra) has also discussed the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in such like cases of long custody. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment contained in para No.4 is reproduced as under:-

"4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."

5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 10-05-2024 03:49:27 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064822 CRM-M-11961-2024 -6-

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also in light of the aforesaid judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court considering the custody of the petitioner, stage of the trial and his clean antecedents.

12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

13. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of deciding the present petition only.

                                                 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
09.05.2024                                               JUDGE
Chetan Thakur


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




                                        6 of 6
                     ::: Downloaded on - 10-05-2024 03:49:27 :::