Wednesday, 22, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Arun Singta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 506 HP

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 506 HP
Judgement Date : 9 January, 2023

Himachal Pradesh High Court
Arun Singta vs State Of Himachal Pradesh on 9 January, 2023
Bench: Satyen Vaidya

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MP(M) No. 2881 of 2022 Decided on : 09.01.2023

.

     Arun Singta                                                 ....Petitioner.





                                         Versus





     State of Himachal Pradesh                                   ...Respondent.

     Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satyen Vaidya, Judge.




     For the petitioner
                   r               to

Whether approved for reporting? 1

:Mr. Manoj Pathak, Advocate.

For the respondent :Mr. Manoj Chauhan and Mr. Varun Chandel, Additional Advocate Generals.

Satyen Vaidya, Judge

Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No.

25/2021, dated 12.03.2021, registered under

Sections 20 and 25 of Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances, Act (for short 'ND&PS'

Act), at Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, H.P.

Petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2021.

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. Petitioner is facing trial for offences

under Sections 20 and 25 of ND&PS Act in

pursuance to challan filed by respondent. The

.

allegation against petitioner is that on 12.03.2021,

at about 12:25 pm the police of Police Station

Chopal laid a Nakka near place Nevati, one vehicle

bearing No. HP 17A-6592 coming from Nerwa side,

was stopped r to and checked and during search of

the vehicle, one red colour bag was recovered, from

which ten plastic bottles of Codeine Phosphate and

Chlorpheniramine Maleate Syrup CHOCO each

contain 100 ml and from the second pocket 32

pieces of Alprozolam (411) tablets each contain 0.5

mg, were recovered.

3. Petitioner has now prayed for grant of

bail on the ground that his constitutional right of

expeditious disposal of trial has been infringed. As

per petitioner, he is in custody approximately since

one year and ten months now and the trial has not

concluded, rather, it is progressing at snails pace.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has

opposed the prayer of the petitioner, on the ground

that Section 37 of ND&PS Act, has application in

.

the facts of the case and merely, on the ground of

delay in conclusion of trial, petitioner cannot be

released on bail.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the

petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate

General and have also gone through the status

report.

6. The fetters placed by Section 37 of

ND&PS Act, evidently have been instrumental in

denial of right of bail to the petitioner in the

instant case till date. The question that arises for

consideration is, can the provisions of Section 37

of the Act, be construed to have same efficacy,

throughout the pendency of trial, notwithstanding,

the period of custody of the accused, especially,

when it is weighed against his fundamental right

to have expeditious disposal of trial?

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for

the petitioner that till date only three witnesses

have been examined and eleven more witnesses

.

remain to be examined, despite the fact that

petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2021. In the

considered view of this Court, the Constitutional

guarantee of expeditious trial cannot be diluted

in perpetuity.

8.

Recently,

by applying the rigors of Section 37 of ND&PS Act

in a number of cases,

under-trials for offences involving commercial

quantity of contraband under ND&PS Act have

been allowed the liberty of bail by Hon'ble

Supreme Court only on the ground that they have

been incarcerated for prolonged durations.

9. In Mahmood Kurdeya Vs. Narcotic

Control Bureau (2022) 3 RCR (Criminal) 906, Hon'ble

Supreme Court has held as under:-

"6.What persuades us to pass an order in favour of the appellant is the fact that despite the rigors of Section 37 of the said Act, in the present case though charge sheet was filed on 23.09.2018 even

the charges have not been framed nor trial has commenced."

10. In Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs.The

.

State of West Bengal (Special Leave to Appeal

(Cr.L.) No (s). 5769 of 2022, decided on 01.08.2022,

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"During the course of the hearing, we are informed

that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The

petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views

in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner."

11. In Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma

Vs. Union of India (Cr. Appeal No. 1169 of 2022),

decided on 05.08.2022,Hon'ble Supreme Court has

held as under:-

" The appellant is in custody since 18.06.2020 in connection with crime registered as NCB Crime No. 02/2020 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 8,20,27-AA, 28 read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,

The application seeking relief of bail having been rejected, the instant appeal has been filed.

We have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, learned Senior Advocate in support of the appeal and Mr.

.

Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent.

Considering the fact and circumstances on record and the length of custody undergone by the appellant, in our view the case for bail is made

out."

12. In Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. The

State of West Bengal, (Criminal Appeal No.(s) 245

under:-

r to of 2020, decided on 07.02.2020, it has been held as

"The appellant was arrested on 21.07.2018 and continues to be custody. It appears that out of 10 witnesses cited to be examined in support of the case of prosecution four witnesses have already been examined in the trial.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival submissions and considering the facts and circumstances on record, in our

view, case for bail is made out."

13. In Abdul Majeed Lone Vs. Union

Territory of Jammu and Kashmir( Special Leave

to Appeal (Cr.L.) No. 3961 of 2022, decided on

01.08.2022, it has been held as under:-

"Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is reported to be in jail since 1-3-2020 and has suffered incarceration for over 2 years and 5 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future, which fact cannot be

controverted by the learned counsel appearing for the UT, we are inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.".

.

14. In addition, different Co-ordinate

Benches of this Court have also followed precedent

to grant bail to the accused in ND&PS Act, on the

ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration.

Reference can be made to order dated 28.07.2022,

passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 1255 of 2022, order dated

01.12.2022, passed in Cr.MP(M) No. 2271 of 2022

and order dated 04.11.2022, passed in Cr.MP(M)

No. 2273 of 2022.

15. Reverting to the facts of the case, the

petitioner is in custody since 12.03.2021 and the

facts suggest that the trial is not likely to be

concluded in near future. There is nothing on

record to suggest that the delay in trial is

attributable to the petitioner.

16. Keeping in view the facts of the case and

also the above noted precedents, the bail petition is

allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on

bail in case FIR No. 25/2021, dated 12.03.2021,

registered under Sections 20 and 25 of ND&PS Act,

at Police Station Chopal, District Shimla, H.P., on

his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.

.

1,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount to

the satisfaction of learned trial court. This order

shall, however, be subject to the following

conditions:-

i)

ii)

Petitioner shall regularly attend the trial of the case before learned Trial Court and shall not cause any delay in its conclusion.

Petitioner shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence, in any manner,

whatsoever and shall not dissuade any person from speaking the truth in relation to the facts of the case in hand.

iii) Petitioner shall be liable for immediate

arrest in the instant case in the event of petitioner violating the conditions of this bail.

(iv) Petitioner shall not leave India without

permission of learned trial Court till completion of trial.

17. Any expression of opinion herein-above

shall have no bearing on the merits of the case

and shall be deemed only for the purpose of

disposal of this petition.

                                                        (Satyen Vaidya)
    9th January, 2023                                           Judge
          (sushma)





 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter