Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shinda vs State Of Punjab on 29 November, 2022
CRM-M-53721-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-53721-2022
Date of decision : 29.11.2022
Shinda ...... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present :-Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Madhur Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
***
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.140 dated
20.08.2022, registered for offences punishable under Sections 21(b) and
29 of the NDPS Act (for short the 'Act'), at Police Station Kartarpur,
District Jalandhar.
2. As per the prosecution version, on receipt of definite
information against three persons including the petitioner, nakabandi
was effected and ruqa was sent for registration of case. On the naka, all
the three suspects including the petitioner were apprehended travelling
on a motorcycle. During their search, heroin weighing 125 gms
alongwith money amounting to Rs.5 lakhs in cash was recovered from
the person of Kashmir Singh, 10 gms of heroin was recovered from the
person of Sukhpal Singh and likewise 15 gms of heroin was recovered
from the petitioner. During further investigation, Kashmir Singh
1 of 3
suffered disclosure which led to further recovery of drug money of
Rs.73,70,000/- from his house.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in fact
it is a case of false implication as even prior to registration of the FIR,
the police was aware of the nature of the contraband and quantity due to
which FIR was registered for offences punishable under Sections 21(b)
and 29 of the Act. He further relies upon the judgment of Apex Court in
Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot vs. State of Gujarat, 2005(7) SCC 550 to
contend that once the case of prosecution is that separate recoveries were
effected, the same cannot be clubbed together. He submits that even if
whole of the contraband recovered from the three is taken together, the
same would be still less than the commercial quantity as notified under
the Act and thus rigorous of Section 37 of the Act will not be applicable.
4. Per contra, Mr. Sharma has emphatically opposed the prayer
made by the petitioner to submit that the petitioner is a habitual offender
and has as many as 12 more FIRs pending against him including FIR
No.173 dated 13.09.2017 registered for offences punishable under
Sections 15/21/29/61 of the Act.
5. Faced with the situation, Mr. Pandit relies upon order dated
21.12.2017 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shinda Singh
vs. State of Punjab to submit that in fact in the said case, there was no
recovery made qua the petitioner and he was nominated merely on the
basis of disclosure statement made by one of the co-accused and was
granted indulgence by this Court by advancing concession of pre-arrest
bail.
2 of 3
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through
the records of the case.
7. Petitioner is in custody since 20.08.2022. Whether the
contraband recovered from the accused is taken together or separately,
admittedly the same would not meet the threshold of commercial
quantity as notified and thus rigors of Section 37 of the Act will not be
attracted. Admittedly, the investigation stands completed and report
under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed. So far as the allegations w.r.t.
the material recovery and the drug money is concerned, the same are qua
Kashmir Singh and not the petitioner.
8. Without commenting on the merits of the case and keeping
in view the incarceration suffered by the petitioner, the present petition is
allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial
Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
9. Needless to say nothing recorded herein shall be construed
to be an expression of an opinion on the merits of the case.
( PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
29.11.2022
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
3 of 3
