Sanju vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 17317 P&H

CRM-M-40114 of 2022                                                 -1-

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                           CHANDIGARH


251                                            CRM-M-40114 of 2022
                                               Date of Decision:20.12.2022

Sanju

                                                                          ....Petitioner

                                        Versus

State of Haryana

                                                                     .....Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

            ****

Present:    Mr. Kuldeep Singh, Advocate, for
            Mr. Lakhwinder Singh, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. S. K. Dagar, DAG, Haryana

            ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

The second petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.531

dated 06.11.2020, under Section 22(C) and 27-A of the NDPS Act, registered at

Police Station City Tohana, District Fatehabad.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner is in custody from 06.11.2020 and only 7 out of 24 prosecution

witnesses have been examined. He submitted that although allegedly there was a

recovery of 3000 tablets of Tramadol from the petitioner but it is a case where the

1 of 3

police has falsely implicated the present petitioner especially considering the fact

that the petitioner is not a habitual offender and is not involved in any other case.

On the other hand, Mr. S. K. Dagar, learned DAG, Haryana has stated

that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody for more than 2 years but the trial

is commencing at fast pace and seven witnesses have already been examined. He

submitted that there was a recovery of 3000 tablets of Tramadol from the petitioner

which fall under the category of commercial quantity and therefore the prayer of

the petitioner is hit by the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act and

there is no ground available with the petitioner to make a departure from the

aforesaid bar. He submitted that so far as the custody of the present petitioner is

concerned, that itself cannot become a ground for grant of bail to the petitioner in

the light of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau versus Mohit Aggarwal 2022(3)

RCR (Crl.) 985.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is a case where the petitioner has faced incarceration for about 2

years. As per the allegations, there was a recovery of 3000 tablets of Tramadol

from the petitioner which fall under the category of commercial quantity. The

petitioner was not able to give any ground for making a departure from the bar

contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Therefore, in view of the aforesaid position, finding no merit in the

present petition for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner, the present

petition is hereby dismissed.

However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an

expression of opinion on merits of the case and is only meant for the purpose of

2 of 3

decision of present petition.

                                       (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
                                               JUDGE
December 20, 2022
dinesh
          Whether speaking                     :     Yes/No
          Whether reportable                   :     Yes/No




                                      3 of 3