Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinay Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 11 November, 2022
1
CRM-M-33388-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
221
CRM-M-33388-2022
Date of Decision: 11.11.2022
Vinay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab,
assisted by ASI Bhan Singh.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in
respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.55 dated 12.05.2019
at Police Station Shambu, District Patiala, under Section 22 of the NDPS
Act.
2. As per the prosecution, 97500 tablets of 'Tramadol' were recovered from
a car being driven by the petitioner. When the petitioner was
apprehended by the police, there was one more occupant Kiyum Ahmed,
who was sitting on the front passenger seat. It is further the case of the
prosecution that while 50000 tablets contained in a bag were found lying
1 of 3
CRM-M-33388-2022
on the rear seat of the car, another bag containing 47500 tablets was
found lying in the boot of the car.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had no clue
whatsoever as regards the contents of the bags lying in the car, as it is the
owner of the car, namely, Ravi, who had kept the same in his car.
Learned counsel has further submitted that since co-accused Kiyum
Ahmed has already been granted bail, the petitioner also deserves the
same concession on grounds of parity particularly when he has been
behind bars since the last about 3 years & 5 months.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the
petitioner was caught red-handed at the spot and huge quantity of
contraband was recovered from the car being driven by the petitioner, his
complicity is clearly evident. Learned State counsel has informed that
the petitioner happens to be involved in 1 more case registered for
offences under Sections 420 & 467 IPC. It has not been disputed that the
petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 3 years & 5
months. It has also been informed that as on date 9 PW out of cited 12
PWs have been examined.
5. This Court has considered rival submissions.
6. Without commenting anything as regards the merits of the case, but while
noticing that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period
of 3 years & 5 months, the petitioner could be extended the benefit of
bail. It is apposite to refer to a few judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court
in this regard wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the concession
2 of 3
CRM-M-33388-2022
of bail solely on ground of long custody:
Case No. Date of Title of case Period which the
Decision accused had
undergone when
granted bail by
Hon'ble Supreme
Court
Criminal Appeal 07.02.2020 Chitta Biswas @ Subhas 1 year & 7 months
No.245/2020 Vs. The State of West
Bengal
Criminal Appeal 12.10.2020 Amit Singh Moni Vs. State 2 years & 7 months
No.668/2020 of Himachal Pradesh
Special Leave to 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan 1 year & 7 months
Appeal (Criminal) Vs. The State of West
No.5769/2022 Bengal
Special Leave to 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. 1 year & 6 months
Appeal (Criminal) The State of West Bengal
No.4173/2022
Criminal Appeal 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna Patra @ 2 years, 1 month &
No.1169/2022 Gopalrusma Vs. Union of 17 days
India
Special Leave to 22.08.2022 Mohammad Salman Hanif About 2 years
Appeal (Criminal) Shaikh Vs. The State of
No.5530/2022 Gujarat
7. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case
particularly the long custody of the petitioner and that the co-accused has
already been granted bail, the petition merits acceptance and is hereby
accepted.
8. The petition, as such, is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate concerned.
9. It is, however, directed that in case the petitioner is found to be indulging
in similar offence again, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an
application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
11.11.2022 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
Vimal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
