Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sarwan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
102 CRM-M-31457-2022
Date of Decision : July 22, 2022
SARWAN SINGH
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present : Mr. K.S.Ahhi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI. J. (Oral)
The present petition is filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.59 dated
16.6.2021 under Sections 21/22-61-85 of NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Ghuman, District Gurdaspur.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner was granted regular bail by the learned
Special Court, Gurdaspur vide Annexure P-3 dated 19.7.2021 and in that
order it was observed that if at the later stage it comes to the record that
the case of the applicant falls under the category of commercial quantity
of the NDPS Act then this order granting regular bail to the applicant
shall automatically be considered vacated and the applicant would be
liable to surrender before the Court. He further submitted that although
this order was for granting regular bail but infact it was in the nature of
interim bail since it was conditional subject to the point when the FSL
1 of 4
report is to be received and if it falls under the commercial quantity, the
bail was deemed to be cancelled. He submitted that the petitioner was in
custody in some other case in which he is involved under the NDPS Act
and, therefore, he could not avail the benefit of bail/interim bail granted
by the Special Judge on 19.7.2021 and now the petitioner has, therefore,
filed a petition for anticipatory bail since the FSL report has been
received.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel has stated that
he has received an advance copy of the present petition and he has also
received instructions from ASI Joga Singh. He submitted that firstly the
present petition is not maintainable since the petitioner is already on bail
and even if it is considered as an interim bail in view of the language
used by the learned Special Judge still the present petition would not be
maintainable. He further submitted that now the FSL report has been
received in which it has been found that the confiscated material was of
the salt of tramadol and the quantity was of 336.8 grams which falls in
the category of commercial quantity and, therefore, in view of the order
passed by the learned Special Judge, his bail has been automatically
cancelled and instead of surrendering before the learned trial Court he has
approached this Court by filing the present anticipatory bail petition
which is not maintainable. He submitted that the petitioner was caught
on the spot and the recovery of tramadol was made from him which falls
under the commercial quantity and, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner
is also hit by the bar contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act and there
is no ground available with the petitioner to seek any departure from the
2 of 4
same and, therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in State of Kerala Vs. Rajesh and others (2020) 12 SCC 122 and
Narcotic Control Bureau Vs. Mohit Aggarwal, Crl. Appeal No. 1001-
1002 of 2022, the present petition is liable to be dismissed on this score
alone.
I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The petitioner was granted bail by the learned Special Judge
on 19.7.2021 which is a regular bail and subject to the condition that in
case the quantity comes out in the category of commercial quantity then
the bail shall be automatically vacated and the petitioner would be liable
to surrender. The learned State counsel while pointing out from the
report of the FSL stated that the date of the report is 15.9.2021 and it is
almost 10 months that the petitioner instead of surrendering before the
learned trial Court has now filed the present application for anticipatory
bail. The argument raised by the learned State counsel is totally justified.
Apart from the same, during the course of arguments, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was in custody in some
other cases and, therefore, he never availed the benefit of bail. Such
argument would not be available to the petitioner in view of the fact that
otherwise also the total quantity was of commercial quantity and even if
the petitioner was in custody and, therefore, physically he could not
surrender but he will have to cross the hurdle of Section 37 of NDPS Act.
Even by ignoring the first argument raised by the learned State counsel,
the petitioner was not able to satisfy this Court as to on what grounds he
can make a departure from the bar contained under Section 37 of NDPS
3 of 4
Act.
Consequently, in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Rajesh's case and Narcotic Control Bureau's case
(Supra), the present petition is devoid of any merit and is, therefore,
dismissed.
However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no
effect on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present
petition only.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
July 22, 2022 JUDGE
ajay-1
Whether speaking/reasoned. : Yes/No
Whether Reportable. : Yes/No
4 of 4
