Punjab-Haryana High Court
Angrej Singh @ Sethi vs State Of Punjab on 13 July, 2022
CRM-M-24575 of 2021 {1}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
286(2) 1. CRM-M-24575 of 2021
Date of decision:13.07.2022
Angrej Singh @ Sethi ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
2. CRM-M-31546 of 2021
Hira Singh @ Heera ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-24575 of 2021.
Mr. D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for
Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-31546 of 2021.
Mr. Prabhjot Singh Walia, AAG, Punjab.
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (Oral)
This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Nos.CRM-M-
24575 of 2021 and CRM-M-31546 of 2021 as both the petitions arise out of
FIR No.42 dated 06.03.2020 for offences under Sections 15 and 29 of
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the
NDPS Act"), lodged at Police Station Sarhali, District Tarn Taran
1 of 4
CRM-M-24575 of 2021 {2}
(Annexure P-1).
Both accused-petitioners, have approached this Court by way of
separate petitions seeking grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Accused-Angrej Singh is approaching this Court for the third time, and
accused-Hira Singh for the second time.
Case of the prosecution is that FIR, (Annexure P-1), has been
registered after a jeep on which the accused were travelling, was signaled to
stop, but instead, jeep driver accelerated the vehicle and tried to flee from
the spot. Upon being apprehended, the driver and co-passenger of the jeep
disclosed their names as Angrej Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-24575 of
2021) and Hira Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-31546 of 2021). On searching
the vehicle, two bags weighing 80 kgs in total, were recovered which
contained poppy husk.
Counsel representing the petitioner urges that although as per
the case of the prosecution, 80 kg poppy husk, has been recovered, but
examination of the allegation in the FIR and affidavit dated 16.05.2022
filed by the State shows that the bags were being carried by the accused
separately. He submits that a bag weighing 41 kgs has been recovered from
accused-Angrej Singh and recovery of second bag weighing 39 kgs has
been effected from accused-Hira Singh. He has placed reliance upon the
judgment of Supreme Court in Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot Vs. State of
Gujarat (2005) 7 SCC 550 as also judgments of this Court in CRM-M-
49935 of 2019 titled as 'Dalwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided
on 08.07.2020; CRM-M-31646 of 2018 titled as 'Pardeep Kumar @
2 of 4
CRM-M-24575 of 2021 {3}
Pindu Vs. State of Punjab', decided on 29.10.2018 and CRM-M-26597 of
2021 titled as 'Balwinder Singh @ Happy Vs. State of Punjab', decided
on 12.08.2021 to urge that recovery effected from the petitioners cannot be
clubbed till the time it is not established that there was some complicity or
conspiracy between the two accused. It has been argued by him that
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not complied with at the time
of search and seizure. Still further, counsel submits that earlier petitions
filed by the petitioners were withdrawn after arguments and no order was
passed on merits. Counsel asserts that petitioners, who have been in custody
since 06.03.2020 and enjoy clean past, deserve to be enlarged on bail due to
the tardy progress of the trial.
Opposing the petitions, on the basis of instructions received
from ASI Baldev Raj and by referring to the affidavit of Superintendent of
Police, Tarn Taran, District Tarn Taran, State counsel submits that as the
quantity recovered is commercial, rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is
attracted. He submits that challan has been presented on 28.08.2020, charge
has been framed on 03.03.2021 and 08 out of total 17 prosecution
witnesses, have been examined.
Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is prima facie
of the view that it would remain debatable as to whether the petitioners,
who are travelling in the same vehicle, were hand in glove with each other
and as to whether the recovery effected from them is to be clubbed or they
are individually liable for the same. If recovery effected from the petitioners
3 of 4
CRM-M-24575 of 2021 {4}
is seen individually, the same falls in the category of intermediate quantity
as per the notification issued under the NDPS Act. The above facts coupled
with the long incarceration of the petitioners which by now is more than 03
years and 04 months, would entitle the petitioners to be released on bail as
there is no possibility of an immediate conclusion of the trial.
Without delving into the merits or demerits of the arguments
addressed by counsel for the parties, the petitions are allowed and the
petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their 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
