Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kumar @ Kala vs State Of Punjab on 29 November, 2022
CRM-M-54035-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.230 CRM-M-54035-2022
Date of decision : 29.11.2022
Rajinder Kumar @ Kala
.....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab
..... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Navjinder Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.0157
dated 02.07.2022 under Section 22-B of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Sri
Muktsar Sahib, District Muktsar Sahib.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged
recovery from the petitioner is of 350 intoxicant tablets of Clobedol-100
SR, which is noncommercial in nature as per the Schedule. He further
submits that the mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS
Act were not complied with during recovery proceedings. The petitioner
has been in custody since 02.07.2022. He further submits that
though the charges have been framed but no witness has been examined so
far.
Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the bail petition on
the ground that total 7000 tablets were recovered from the petitioner as well
as his co-accused, taken together is commercial in nature. However, he is
unable to controvert the fact that the petitioner is in custody since
02.07.2022 and challan has been presented, though charges have been
framed, no witness has been examined and that there is one more case under
1 of 3
the NDPS Act against the petitioner. He further submits that co-accused,
namely, Sonu Juneja, has already been granted the concession of regular
bail by this Court vide order dated 21.10.2022 passed in CRM-M-47860-
2022.
In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
quantity cannot be considered as commercial inasmuch as individual
recovery has to be taken into consideration as per the judgment of Sami
Ullaha Vs. Superintendent, Narcotric Central Bureau, 2009 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 40. He further submits that in other FIR, in which the quantity
of contraband was non-commercial, the petitioner is on bail.
Heard.
Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case
particularly that the petitioner is in custody since 02.07.2022; co-accused,
Sonu Juneja has already been released on regular bail; though charges have
been framed but out of a total 16 PWs, none has been examined so far,
therefore, conclusion of the trial will take a considerable time, his further
detention behind the bars would not serve any useful purpose, thus, the
present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and
subject to him not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall
abide by the following conditions:-
1. The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
2. The petitioner will not pressurise/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
3. The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on
each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a
specific order of Court.
4. The petitioner shall surrender his passport, if any,
and will not leave the country without the
permission of the Trial Court.
5. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar
to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for
commission of which he is suspected of.
6. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
coerce, inducement, threaten or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as
2 of 3
to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer or tamper with
the evidence in any manner.
7. The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his
liberty.
8. Any infraction shall entail in withdrawal of the
benefit granted by this Court.
9. The petitioner will furnish correct mobile number
and residential address and shall not change the
same without prior intimation to the trial Court.
It is further clarified that if the petitioner does not abide by the
aforesaid conditions, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of
his bail.
Nothing stated hereinabove be construed as a final expression
of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the observations made above, which have only been made
for the purpose of adjudicating the present petition for grant of regular bail.
29.11.2022 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
gsv JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
3 of 3
