Deepak Mittal Alias Vicky vs Ut Chandigarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 17439 P&H

CRM-M-50141-2022                                                         1

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                   AT CHANDIGARH
223
                                                CRM-M-50141-2022
                                 `              Decided on :21.12.2022
Deepak Mittal @ Vicky
                                                                 . . . Petitioner
                                     Versus
U.T. Chandigarh
                                                               . . . Respondent

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
PRESENT: Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Advocate and
         Mr. Arjun Dosanj, Advocate
         for the petitioner.
             Mr. A. M. Punchhi, P.P., U.T. Chandigarh

                                     ****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

This is the first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant

of regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 108 dated 09.07.2022

registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic

Substances Act, 1985 at Police Station Sector-34, Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner has been in custody since 09.07.2022 and the challan has

already been presented and there are 15 witnesses, out of which, none

have been examined and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take

time. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery from the petitioner

is of 33 gms. of heroin which would fall under non commercial

category inasmuch as, commercial quantity stipulated for the same

starts from 250 gms.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the

1 of 3

present petition for regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted that

the petitioner is involved in 3 other cases out of which two cases are

under the NDPS Act and thus, he is habitual offender and does not

deserve the concession of regular bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has

submitted that in all the said cases, the petitioner is on bail and in this

regard, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another",

reported as 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."

This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has

perused the paper book.

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances

moreso, the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 09.07.2022

and the challan has already been presented and there are 15 witnesses,

2 of 3

out of which, none have been examined and thus, the conclusion of trial

is likely to take time and recovery from the present petitioner is of non

commercial quantity and thus, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS

Act would not apply and also in view of the law laid down in

Maulana's (supra) case, the present petition is allowed and the

petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail / surety

bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate

and subject to him not being required in any other case.

However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by

the petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the

witnesses, then it would be open to the State to move an application for

cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner.

Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final

expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would

proceed independently of the observations made in the present case

which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.

                                                     (VIKAS BAHL)
21.12.2022                                              JUDGE
Mehak
                      Whether reasoned/speaking?        Yes/No
                      Whether reportable?               Yes/No




                                            3 of 3