Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sahib Singh @ Sunny vs State Of Punjab on 15 November, 2022
CRM-M No.40728 of 2022 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.40728 of 2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision.15.11.2022
Sahib Singh @ Sunny ...Petitioner
Vs
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR
Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.
-.-
JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL)
This is second petition that has been filed under Section 439
Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.123 dated
17.09.2021 registered under Section 21 (c) of the NDPS Act at Police
Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend
that the petitioner has been allegedly found in possession of 910 intoxicant
tablets, which contained Tramadole Hydrochloride. The total recovery from
the petitioner is stated to be 309 grams, which is marginally higher than
what is constituted to be a commercial quantity. It is further contended that
the petitioner is in custody since 08.07.2022. It is also contended that in
fact, a perusal of the FIR would reflect that the petitioner was not in
conscious possession of the so-called intoxicant tablets. They were
admittedly recovered from the roadside and that too, in a plastic bag. It is a
debatable question whether any recovery made from roadside can be
attributed as conscious possession. In support of his contention, he relies
1 of 2
upon the judgment passed by Coordinate Bench in CRM-M No.16150 of
2021 titled as Balwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 19.07.2021;
Ravi Kumar Vs. State of Punjab 2019 (4) RCR (Criminal) 714 and Jaskaran
Singh @ Jassu Vs. State of Punjab 2021 (2) RCR (Criminal) 837. It is also
submitted that the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and therefore,
prays of concession of regular bail to the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State
opposes grant of bail to the petitioner by contending that the recovery
effected from the petitioner is of commercial quantity and therefore, he is
not entitled to be enlarged on bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the paper book and keeping in view the fact that the recovery effected from
the petitioner is marginally higher than what is constituted to be commercial
quantity and it is debatable issue whether the petitioner was in conscious
possession of the alleged contraband or not and also the fact that the trial is
likely to take some time to conclude, no useful purpose would be served in
keeping the petitioner behind bars. The instant petition is allowed and the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his execution of
adequate personal/surety bonds of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of
concerned trial court/Duty Magistrate. However, any observation made
herein shall not be construed to be an expression on merits of the case.
(JAISHREE THAKUR)
November 15, 2022 JUDGE
Pankaj*
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
