Raman Kumar vs State Of Punjab
2022 Latest Caselaw 10658 P&H

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
               AT CHANDIGARH
225                                                      CRM-M-39721-2022
                                        Date of Decision : September 07, 2022

RAMAN KUMAR
                                                                 .....Petitioner

                                   VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                              .....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present : Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI. J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in

case FIR No.73 dated 10.7.2021 under Sections 21, 22 and 29 of NDPS

Act, registered at Police Station Dhakoli, District SAS Nagar.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that the petitioner is in custody from 10.7.2021 which is more

than one year and the investigation has already been completed in the

present case and thereafter the challan has been presented before the

competent Court. He further submitted that two witnesses have already

been examined in the present case and so far as the petitioner is

concerned, he has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case.

He submitted that even as per the FIR, the petitioner alongwith two more

co-accused were caught alongwith 15 injections of Buprenorphine of 2

ml each and 15 injections of Avil. He further submitted that so far as the

1 of 3

15 injections of Avil is concerned, the same are not covered within the

purview of NDPS Act and so far as the alleged recovery of 15 injections

of Buprenorphine from the petitioner is concerned, the same is slightly

higher than the commercial quantity but the same is permissible under

Rule 66 of the NDPS Rules. He also relied upon the judgment of this

Court in Sukhwinder Singh @ Vicky Vs. State of Punjab, 2021(1)

R.C.R.(Criminal) 177. He further submitted that the other co-accused,

namely, Sunny Kumar has been granted bail vide CRM-M-18657-2022

and the petitioner is at parity with the aforesaid co-accused and rather he

is on better footing since there was no recovery of any Heroin from the

petitioner.

On the other hand, the learned State counsel has submitted

that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody for more than one year

and it is also correct that the other co-accused has been granted bail by

this Court in the aforesaid case.

I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

The petitioner has suffered incarceration for more than one

year. The other co-accused, namely, Sunny Kumar has been granted bail

vide CRM-M-18657-2022. The petitioner is stated to be at parity with

the aforesaid co-accused and so far as the applicability of the judgment

passed by this Court in Sukhwinder Singh's case (Supra) is concerned, the

learned State counsel has not disputed the same. Apart from the same,

the petitioner is stated to be not involved in any other case. Therefore,

after hearing the learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the view

that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

2 of 3

Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner

is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds and surety

bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial

Court/Duty Magistrate.

However, anything observed here-in-above shall have no

effect on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present

petition only.

                                          (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
September 07, 2022                                 JUDGE
ajay-1
             Whether speaking/reasoned.       :      Yes/No
             Whether Reportable.              :      Yes/No




                                3 of 3