Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumit Kumar Alias Shambhu vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2022
CRM-M-51387-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-51387-2022
Date of decision : 14.11.2022
Sumit Kumar @ Shambhu
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Ravi Rana, Advocate and
Mr.Ashok Giri, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.227 dated 17.08.2022 registered
under Sections 21B of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
1985 (in short "NDPS Act") (Section 29 NDPS Act added later on) at Police
Station Jalandhar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that neither
the petitioner has been named in the FIR nor apprehended at the spot and
the recovery from the co-accused of the petitioner is of 10 grams of heroin
which is far less than the commercial quantity which starts from 250 grams.
It is further submitted that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of
disclosure statement of co-accused. The petitioner has been in custody since
23.08.2022 and the investigation is complete and the challan has already
been presented and there are 10 witnesses, out of which, none have been
1 of 3
examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the petitioner is
involved in three other cases under the NDPS Act and an amount of
Rs.12,80,000/- was recovered from co-accused Sunil Kumar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi
vs. State of U.P. and another", reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend
that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while
deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot
be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other
cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the
role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and
other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court etc."
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances
moreso, the fact that recovery in the present case effected from the co-
accused is of non-commercial quantity and also the fact that petitioner has
been in custody since 23.08.2022 and the investigation is complete and the
challan has already been presented and there are 10 witnesses, out of which,
none have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time and no
recovery has been effected from the present petitioner and in view of the
2 of 3
law laid down in Maulana's case (supra), the present petition is allowed
and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail /
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/ Duty
Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other case.
However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the witnesses,
then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of
bail granted to the petitioner.
Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of
opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently
of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose
of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 14, 2022
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
