Punjab-Haryana High Court
Veerpal Singh Alias Vicky vs State Of Punjab on 13 July, 2022
CRM-M-15669 of 2022 (O&M) {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15669 of 2022 (O&M)
105+210 Date of decision:13.07.2022
Veerpal Singh alias Vicky ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Hitesh Nehra, Addl.A.G.Punjab.
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
CRM No.23545 of 2022
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Necessary permission is granted.
CRM No.23548 of 2022
Application is allowed as prayed for.
Zimni orders passed by the Trial Court on 28.03.2022,
04.04.2022, 25.04.2022, 16.05.2022 and 01.06.2022 are taken on record as
Annexure A-1 (collectively).
CRM-M-15669 of 2022
This is the fifth petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,
seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0063 dated
1 of 4
CRM-M-15669 of 2022 (O&M) {2}
14.04.2019 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act") at Police Station Sadar
Patti, District Tarn Taran (Annexure P-1).
Version of the prosecution is that FIR (Annexure P-1) has been
registered on recovery of 1440 loose tablets from a polythene bag thrown by
the rider of a motorcycle on being intercepted by the police. On analysis,
tablets were found containing salt alprazolam and its total weight was found
to be 547.2 mg.
Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to
the order dated 14.03.2022 passed in CRM-M-39881 of 2020, whereby, the
previous petition preferred by the petitioner seeking regular bail has been
disposed of. Relevant extract of the order is reproduced as under:-
"Pursuant to order dated 23.11.2021 passed by this
Court, an affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub
Division Patti, District Tarn Taran has been filed on behalf of
respondent-State, which is taken on record, wherein it has been
submitted as under:-
"5. That it is further submitted that the delay for non-
examining prosecution evidences in the present case is
not intentionally and deliberately at the part of
investigating agency, but due to reason explained above
and the prosecution is (sic) undertakes to conclude the
entire remaining prosecution witnesses before the Ld.
Trial Court on the next date of hearing or any other date
2 of 4
CRM-M-15669 of 2022 (O&M) {3}
of hearing as convenient to the Ld. Trial Court."
Upon instructions received from SI, Gurtej Singh, State
Counsel has informed the Court that the next date before the
Trial Court is 28.03.2022.
Considering the affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Sub Division Patti, District Tarn Taran, this Court is of
the view that no order is required to be passed in the instant
petition as the prosecution evidence is likely to be concluded
soon.
Petition is disposed of.
However, in case there is any delay in the conclusion of
the prosecution evidence, liberty is granted to the petitioner to
approach this Court afresh."
Petitioner has placed on record zimni orders passed by the Trial
Court from 28.03.2022 to 01.06.2022 to submit that no prosecution witness
has been examined in the last 04 months. Reliance has been placed by
counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Union of
India Vs. K.A.Najeeb (2021) 3 Supreme Court Cases 713 to submit that
once there is a delay in the conclusion of the trial, Court is obligated to
release the accused on bail.
Per contra, learned State counsel while filing custody certificate
dated 12.07.2022, has opposed the petition by submitting that the
contraband recovered falls within the ambit of commercial quantity as per
3 of 4
CRM-M-15669 of 2022 (O&M) {4}
notification issued under the NDPS Act.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Despite a categoric affidavit having been filed before this
Court, prosecution has failed to conclude the evidence. Petitioner, who is
not involved in any other criminal case, has been languishing behind bars
for the last more than 03 years and 02 months. There seems to be a remote
possibility of an early conclusion of the trial.
In view of the above backdrop and observations of the Supreme
Court in K.A.Najeeb's case (supra), this Court is of the view that the
petitioner deserves to be released on bail during pendency of the trial.
Without examining the merits of the allegations levelled against
the petitioner, petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released
on bail on furnishing heavy bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
It is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall not
be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
July 13, 2022 JUDGE
savita
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
4 of 4
