Sukhchain Singh Alias Manga vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 2530 P&H

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                     CRM-M-7857-2022 (O & M)
                     Date of decision: 04.04.2022
Sukhchain Singh @ Manga                                       ...... Petitioner

           V/s

State of Punjab                                                ...Respondent



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:     Ms. Riffi Birla, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

                 *****

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition is for the grant of regular bail

to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a case bearing FIR No.137

dated 26.06.2019 under Sections 21/61/85 of NDPS Act registered with P.S.

City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recovery

from the petitioner is 265 grams of heroin which is marginally higher than

the commercial quantity of 250 grams. She submits that this weight would

include the weight of the polythene bag, therefore it would be debatabale

whether the quantity recovered is actually commercial or non-commercial.

She relies upon the judgment of this Court in '(i) Pritam Kaur @ Bawi

versus State of Punjab, decided on 31.01.2020 in CRM-M-44066-2019,

(ii) Satnam Singh @ Sattu versus State of Punjab decided on 17.09.2019

in CRM-M-30672-2019, Hardeep Singh @ Deepa versus State of

Punjab, decided on 30.09.2013 in CRM-M-26153-2013 and (iv)

Gurpreet Singh versus State of Punjab decided on 23.03.2022 in CRM-

1 of 3

CRM-M-7857-2022 (O & M) ::2::

M-45214-2021'. She further submits that the petitioner is in custody since

26.06.2019. The first bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as

withdrawn vide order dated July 20, 2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by this

Court. Pursuant thereto the present petition has been filed and during the

interim period, no prosecution witness has been examined out of the total 10

witnesses cited by the prosecution. She, thus, contends that the petitioner

deserves the concession of regular bail as the trial has made absolutely no

progress whatsoever and the petitioner has undergone a total custody period

of almost 02 years and 09 months. She relies upon the judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case titled as '(i) Chitta Biswas alias

Subhas versus The State of West Bengal in Criminal Appeal No(s).245 of

2020 @ SLP (Crl.) No.8823 of 2019 decided on 07.02.2020', (ii) Mahmood

Kurdeya versus Narcotics Control Bureau (Criminal Appeal No.1570 @

SLP (Crl.) No. 7085 of 2021 decided on 07.12.2021, (iii) Amit Singh Moni

versus State of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2020

arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.3813 of 2020 decided on 12.10.2020 and

the judgment passed by the Allahabad High Court in the case titled as

'Anokhi lal versus State of U.P. (Criminal Bail Application No.6869 of

2019 decided on 30.03.2022)'.

The learned State counsel submits that the recovery effected

from the petitioner is of commercial quantity and, as such, the petitioner

does not deserve the concession of regular bail. He, however, does not

dispute the period of custody undergone by the petitioner.

I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

                               2 of 3

 CRM-M-7857-2022 (O & M)                                                  ::3::

Admittedly, the recovery effected from the petitioner is of 265

grams of heroin which is marginally above the commercial quantity of 250

grams, which would, thus, be a matter of adjudication during the course of

trial as to whether the recovery was actually of commercial or non-

commercial quantity. However, given the facts that the petitioner has been

in custody since 26.06.2019, has no criminal antecedents and the quantity of

recovery being a borderline case, the further incarceration of the petitioner is

not warranted.

Therefore, without commenting upon the merits of the case but

keeping in view the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the

near future the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be

released on bail subject to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate

concerned.

It is further made clear that if the petitioner indulges in similar

offence for which he is currently charged, the State would be at liberty to

move an application for cancellation of bail.

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an

expression of any opinion on merits of the case.

                                                ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
April 04, 2022                                       JUDGE
sukhpreet


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




                                3 of 3