Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chandan Gupta vs State Of Punjab on 5 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
201 CRM-M-14497-2021
Date of decision : 05.07.2022
Chandan Gupta
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.. Respondent
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
Present:- Mr. Harjeet Singh Minhas, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Hittan Nehra, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
***
Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. (Oral)
The petitioner is seeking regular bail in FIR No.181 dated
21.10.2019 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station
Adampur, District Jalandhar (Rural).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is alleged in the
FIR that 14,000 intoxicant tablets containing Tramadol with a total weight of 9
Kgs. 72 grams were allegedly recovered from the suitcase carried by the
petitioner. The petitioner is in custody for over two years and eight months and
is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. He also submits that
due to Covid-19 pandemic, the trial has virtually come to a standstill. Learned
counsel has relied upon the judgments of the Coordinate Benches of this Court
in the case of Kashmir Singh vs. State of Punjab, in CRM-M-7437 of 2019,
decided on 21.02.2019, the petitioner therein had been granted regular bail as
he was in custody for over seven months and the judgment in the case of
Karaj Singh versus State of Punjab, in CRM-M-23811 of 2018, decided on
1 of 3
----------
09.07.2018, the petitioner therein had been granted regular bail after custody
of six months.
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in Court,
which indicates that the petitioner is in custody for 02 years, 08 months and 10
days as on 04.07.2022. He, upon instructions from ASI Kewal Singh, states
that 05 out of 13 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He also submits
that in view of the heavy recovery amounting to total weight of 9 kgs.72 grams
of Tramadol, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of regular bail.
Heard.
The allegations against the petitioner are that 14,000 intoxicant
tablets containing Tramadol were allegedly recovered from the suitcase carried
by him. He is in custody for over two years and eight months and is not
involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. Only 05 out of 13 prosecution
witnesses have been examined.
The Supreme Court in the case of 'Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas
versus The State of West Bengal' bearing Criminal Appeal No.245 of 2020
decided on 7.2.2020 had granted bail to an accused who was allegedly in
possession of contraband of commercial quantity on the ground that he had
been in custody for one year and six months and only 4 out of the cited 10
prosecution witnesses had been examined. In another case i.e. Criminal Appeal
No.668 of 2020 titled 'Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh', the
Supreme Court vide its order dated 12.10.2020, had granted regular bail on
account of custody of 2 years and 7 months.
2 of 3
----------
In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the
petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the
instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular
bail on his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate concerned.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
July 05, 2022
sonia gugnani
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
