Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh And Anr vs State Of Punjab on 15 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-22974-2022
Reserve on: 13.07.2022
Pronounced on: 15.07.2022
Gurpreet Singh and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Sumeet Goel, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Harbir Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.
The petitioners seek grant of concession of regular bail in
case bearing FIR No. 77 dated 22.04.2022 under Sections 21 and 29
of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
registered at Police Station Special Task Force, District STF Wing.
Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners contends that
the false implication of the petitioner would be apparent from the
photographs placed on record as Annexures P.7 and P.8; that these
photographs would clearly show that on 22.04.2022 at 3.28 p.m., the
petitioners were going on their motor-cycle and at around 3.50 p.m,
the said motor-cycle was being driven by Constable Kulwinder Singh,
whereas the petitioners were allegedly being taken in a white colour
XUV from Ludhiana to Sirhind; that the possession of the
motorcycle with the said Police Constable clearly establishes that
firstly, the petitioners were taken by the police and then, the alleged
contraband was planted upon them at 7.00 p.m. on 22.04.2022 and
accordingly, the FIR was registered.
1 of 5
CRM-M-22974-2022 [2]
It is further submitted that the petitioners have falsely
been implicated in the present case; that the petitioners moved an
application before the trial Court for preserving the CCTV footage
from the factory of M/s Bhagwan Products at Ludhiana as well as the
Gill Bridge, Ludhiana; that considering the facts of the case, the
concerned SHO was directed to preserve the CCTV footage and
further directed to submit the report of the same on 07.05.2022.
Learned Senior counsel further contends that
surprisingly, in order to save the officials of STF, the concerned SHO
had not preserved the same.
Learned Senior Counsel further contends that as per the
prosecution version, recovery of 260 gram heroin, which is
marginally above the commercial quantity, had been effected from
the petitioners; that the contraband was weighed with the polythene
bag; and that there is no other case registered or pending against the
petitioners.
Learned Senior Counsel would further argue that the
petitioner has been in custody since the date of arrest i.e. 22.04.2022
and keeping in view that the alleged contraband is marginally above
the commercial quantity, the petitioner may be granted the
indulgence of regular bail. In this regard, he relies upon various
orders passed by the Coordinate Benches, i.e. CRM-M-7407-2021-
Gurvinder Sigh Vs. State of Punjab, decided on 22.02.2021; CRM-
M-18775-2021 - Jatin Arora @ Jatin Vs. State of Punjab, decided on
07.07.2021; CRM-M-44873-2019 - Kala Vs. State of Punjab, decided
on 24.01.2020 etc.
Learned Senior counsel would further rely upon the
latest judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs.
Rakesh Singh @ Rakesh Kumar Singh, Criminal Appeal No. 923 of
2022, delivered on 11.07.2022. While laying emphasis on the said
judgment, it is submitted that in the said case, the recovery effected
2 of 5
CRM-M-22974-2022 [3]
was of intermediate quantity and that there were as many as 53
other cases against the respondent-accused therein, out of which, he
had been convicted in 2 cases. Besides, that there were allegations
against the respondent-accused therein of having exerted threats to
the Investigating Officers and public servants and misbehaving with
them, were also there. It is, thus, contended that despite these
attending circumstances, the order granting bail to the respondent
therein by the High Court was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court.
Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the present case is on
much better footing as there is no other case registered or pending
against the petitioner and that the alleged recovery is marginally
above the commercial quantity.
Still further reliance is also placed upon the judgments
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Union of India Vs. Md. Jamal, Criminal
Appeal No. 752 of 2022, decided on 06.05.2022; Union of India vs.
Rattan Mallik @ Habul, 2009(1) RCR (Criminal) 938 and Union of
India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow Vs. Md. Nawaz
Khan, 2021 AIR (SC) 4476.
On the other hand, learned State counsel, while
opposing the prayer for bail, submits that recovery of contraband
effected from the petitioners, falls under the commercial quantity and
that on the basis of photographs, the authenticity whereof is yet to be
ascertained, it cannot be said that the petitioners have falsely been
implicated. Though, it is vehemently denied that the motorcycle of
the petitioners was being driven by a Police Constable immediately at
the given time, yet it is submitted that the petitioners are only
alleging that they were being taken in a white colour XUV car and
that there is no corroborative material on record to establish this
fact.
So far as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Rakesh Singh's case (supra) is concerned, suffice to say that the said
3 of 5
CRM-M-22974-2022 [4]
case has its peculiar facts, which have been noticed by in para No.
18.1 of the judgment, that would read as under:-
"18.1 Although, the past history of the respondent and
even his conduct in relation to the processes concerning the
present case give rise to a few questions but, the strong
countervailing factor in the present case is the prima facie
indication that he is being sought to be framed by concoctions
and baseless stories. Another factor noticeable is that the
respondent has not been involved in any NDPS Act case or any
akin offence in the past. Interestingly, it is noticed from the
material placed on record that nothing of any contraband article
has been recovered from the respondent or from any place
under his exclusive control. This factor further adds on to the
doubt as to whether the respondent had at all been indulgent in
narcotics or any contraband? That being the position, the view
as taken by the High Court cannot be said to be an altogether
unacceptable or impossible view of the matter. Moreover, it
cannot be said that the respondent was consciously seeking to
abscond on 23.02.2021 merely because he was found in the
night at Purba Bardhaman and not at Kolkata. In any case, the
aspect relating to tendency to flee has been duly taken care of
with the conditions as imposed by the High Court. The other
submissions with reference to the decision in the case of
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar (supra) hardly make out a case for
interference particularly looking to the nature of evidence
sought to be adduced by the prosecution against the
respondent. In this regard, we would hasten to observe that
apart from the stringent conditions already imposed by the
High Court, it is always open for the prosecution to seek
imposition of any further condition or even to seek cancellation
of the bail granted to the respondent, in case of any fault on his
part in due adherence to the conditions already imposed."
Therefore, the said judgment is of no help to the
petitioners. Still further, the authenticity of the photographs is to be
decided on the basis of evidence during the trial.
In Md. Jamal's case (supra), the order granting bail to
the accused therein by the High Court, was set aside by the Hon'ble
Apex Court considering the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
In Rattan Mallik's case (supra), it was held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that while granting bail to an accused from
4 of 5
CRM-M-22974-2022 [5]
whom recovery of the commercial quantity was effected, the twin
conditions i.e. reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is
not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit
any offence while on bail, are to be satisfied. Similar was the view
taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Md. Nawaz Khan's case
(supra).
Thus, even the said judgments are of also no help to the
petitioners.
So far as the Coordinate Benches' orders relied upon by
the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are concerned, the
same are prior to the various rulings of the Hon'ble Apex Court,
wherein a considerable period of custody is mandated before
considering the pleas of the accused for grant of bail.
In Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5507/2020 -
Jamshed Alam @ Jamsher Alam Vs. The State of Jharkhand, vide
order dated 29.10.2021, the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to order
the release of the accused therein on bail, only after he had
undergone custody period of more than 3 years.
So far as the Coordinate Benches' orders relied upon by
the learned Senior Counsel are concerned, the same are prior to the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Jamshed Alam's case.
In view of the above, no ground is made out to grant the
concession of regular bail to the petitioners.
Dismissed.
(HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
JUDGE
15.07.2022
ds
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
