Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 May, 2024

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064695



CRM-M No.13871 of 2024 (O&M)                                              1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

202

                                         CRM-M No.13871 of 2024 (O&M)
                                             Date of decision: 14.05.2024
Gurmeet Singh
                                                              ....Petitioner
                                  Versus
State of Punjab
                                                            ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR

Present:    Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.

NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this 2nd petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.113 dated 19.06.2020, registered under Section 21/61 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the allegations, the FIR has been registered on the basis of secret information that the petitioner and his co-accused namely Rukmandeep Singh, Rajinder Singh and Arshdeep Singh, are indulged in the business of sale and purchase of Heroin. Later on, the accused persons were apprehended from a Scorpio car bearing registration No.PB30-R-9170, driven by co-accused of the petitioner namely Rukmandeep Singh and on search, recovery of 70 gms of Heroin was effected from the present 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2024 06:50:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064695 CRM-M No.13871 of 2024 (O&M) 2 petitioner - Gurmeet Singh whereas recovery of 80 gms of Heroin was effected from the co-accused of the petitioner namely Arshdeep Singh along with alleged drug money of Rs.2,60,000/-.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged recovery has already been effected from the petitioner and he is no more required for further investigation. He also contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years, 10 months and 12 days.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the co-accused namely Rajinder Singh @ Raja and Rukmandeep Singh @ Rukman, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 01.03.2024, passed in CRM-M Nos.3554 and 17251 of 2023. Lastly, he submits that the investigation in the present case is complete as challan stands presented and charges have been framed and out of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 08 PWs have been examined and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while placing on record the custody certificate dated 13.05.2024 as well as the status report by way of affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police (City), Ferozepur, has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2024 06:50:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064695 CRM-M No.13871 of 2024 (O&M) 3 involved in some other cases also, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

6. Refuting the above contention of the learned State counsel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is on bail in other cases. He further relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another", 2012 (2) SCC 382, to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

"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 accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. Without commenting anything on merits of the case, considering the fact that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of regular bail and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years, 10 months and 12 days; investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been framed; out of total 20 prosecution witnesses only 08 PWs have been examined so far and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2024 06:50:50 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064695 CRM-M No.13871 of 2024 (O&M) 4 time to conclude, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions: -

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence oral or documentary during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the one alleged in the present case.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his mobile number to the police authorities and shall not change his mobile number without prior permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by the trial Court, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

                                             (NAMIT KUMAR)
                                                 JUDGE
14.05.2024
yakub         Whether speaking/reasoned:              Yes/No

              Whether reportable:                     Yes/No




                                 4 of 4
              ::: Downloaded on - 15-05-2024 06:50:50 :::