Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh @ Rinku vs State Of Punjab on 12 September, 2022
226 CRM-M-29576-2022 and CRM-M-1416-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-29576-2022
Date of Decision: 12.09.2022
Ranjit Singh @ Rinku
......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
.........Respondent
2. CRM-M-1416-2022
Damanpreet Singh
...Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. S.P.S. Khaira, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-29576-2022).
Ms. Manpreet Ghuman, Advocate,
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-1416-2022).
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.
*****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)
1. This order shall dispose of two petitions filed under Section
439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No. 118,
dated 17.09.2020, under Sections 22/29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered
at Police Station Dehlon, District Police Commissionerate Ludhiana.
2. The first bail petition CRM-M-29576-2022 has been filed by
Ranjit Singh @ Rinku and the 2nd regular bail application CRM-M-1416-
2022 has been filed by Damanpreet Singh.
1 of 9
226 CRM-M-29576-2022 and CRM-M-1416-2022 -2-
3. Learned counsel for both the petitioners have jointly
submitted that the petitioners are in custody since 17.09.2020 and the
investigation is complete and the challan is presented and there are 43
witnesses, none of whom have been examined and thus, the trial is likely
to take time. It is submitted that keeping the petitioners in further
incarceration would be in violation of the right of the petitioners enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the
petitioners have relied upon an order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in CRM-3773-2019 in CRA-D-198-DB-
2017 titled as Bhupender Singh Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, order
dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif
Shaikh Vs. The State of Gujarat, order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 titled as
"Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal", order
dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal
Appeal No.1169 of 2022 titled as "Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma
Vs. Union of India,", order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022 titled as
"Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal", in support
of their arguments that on the basis of long custody alone, the petitioners
deserve the concession of regular bail.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Ranjit Singh @ Rinku has
submitted that this is the 2nd bail application and the first bail application
of the petitioner was withdrawn on 25.05.2022 with liberty to file a fresh
2 of 9
226 CRM-M-29576-2022 and CRM-M-1416-2022 -3-
petition after giving better particulars and annexing the relevant documents
and the present petition has been filed after complying with the said order
and thus, in effect, the present petition is the first petition for grant of
regular bail.
5. On the other hand hand, learned State counsel has opposed the
present petitions for the concession of regular bail to both the petitioners
and has submitted that both the petitioners are involved in one other case
each under the NDPS Act. It is also contended that the recovery effected
from the petitioners falls within the ambit of commercial quantity and thus,
the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, applies and thus, the petitioners
do not deserve the concession of regular bail.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in rebuttal has submitted
that both the petitioners have been granted bail in the said other cases and
have upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court titled as Maulana
Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and others 2012 (2) SCC 382 to
contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen
and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the
ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. 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."
3 of 9
226 CRM-M-29576-2022 and CRM-M-1416-2022 -4-
7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and
has perused the paper book.
"The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Salman Hanif
Shaikh's case (Supra), had held as under:-
"We are inclined to release the petitioner on bail
only on the ground that he has spent about two years in custody
and conclusion of trial will take some time.
Consequently, without expressing any views on the
merits of the case and taking into consideration the custody
period of the petitioner, this special leave petition is accepted and
the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his
furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Judge/
concerned Trial Court.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed
of in the above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed."
8. The above-said case was also a case under the NDPS Act,
1985 and the FIR had been registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of
the said Act. The case of the prosecution therein was that the recovery
from the said petitioner (therein) was of commercial quantity. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had observed that the concession of bail was granted to the
petitioner (therein) only on the ground that he had spent about two years in
custody and the conclusion of trial will take some time.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas's case
(Supra) was pleased to grant concession of bail to the petitioner (therein)
in a case where the custody was of 1 year and 7 months approximately.
The relevant portion of the said order dated 07.02.2020 is as under: -
"Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of the final Order dated
4 of 9
226 CRM-M-29576-2022 and CRM-M-1416-2022 -5-
30.7.2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No.6787
of 2019. The instant matter arises out of application preferred by
the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in
connection with Criminal Case No.146 of 2018 registered with
Taherpur Police Station for offence punishable under Section 21-
C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
According to the prosecution, the appellant was
found to be in possession of narcotic substance i.e. 46 bottles of
phensydryl cough syrup containing codeine mixture above
commercial quantity.
The appellant was arrested on 21.07.2018 and
continues to be in custody. It appears that out of 10 witnesses
cited to be examined in support of the case of prosecution four
witnesses have already been examined in the trial.
Without expressing any opinion on the merits or
demerits of the rival submissions and considering the facts and
circumstances on record, in our view, case for bail is made out.
We therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:
(a) Subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of
Rs.2 lakhs with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the Judge,
Special Court, NDPS Act, Nadia at Krishnagar, the appellant
shall be released on bail.
(b) The Special Court may impose such other
conditions as it deems appropriate to ensure the presence and
participation of the appellant in the pending trial. With the
aforesaid directions, the appeal stands allowed."
In Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma's case (Supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under:
"Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order
dated 25.01.2022 passed by the High Court Of Madhya Pradesh,
Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in MCRC No.117/2022. The appellant
is in custody since 18.06.2020 in connection with crime registered
as N.C.B. Crime No.02/2020 in respect of offences punishable
under Sections 8, 20, 27-AA, 28 read with 29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The application seeking relief of bail having been
5 of 9
226 CRM-M-29576-2022 and CRM-M-1416-2022 -6-
rejected, the instant appeal has been filed. We have heard Mr.
Ashok Kumar Panda, learned Senior Advocate in support of the
appeal and Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General
for the respondent.
Considering the facts and circumstances on record
and the length of custody undergone by the appellant, in our view
the case for bail is made out.
We therefore, direct that: (a) The appellant shall be
produced before the Trial Court within five days from today. (b)
The Trial Court shall release the appellant on bail subject to such
conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose. (c)
The appellant shall not in any manner misuse his liberty. (d) Any
infraction shall entail in withdrawal of the benefit granted by this
Order. The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms."
A perusal of the above-said order would show that in the said
case also the custody was of approximately 2 years, 1 month and 17 days
and the case was under the NDPS Act, 1985 and primarily, considering the
length of the custody period, concession of bail was granted to the
petitioner (therein).
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan's case (Supra) has observed as under: -
"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of
the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was
supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and
separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no
one has entered appearance on their behalf.
The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R.
No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and
37 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West
Bengal.
During the course of the hearing, we are informed
that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year
and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary
stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does
6 of 9
226 CRM-M-29576-2022 and CRM-M-1416-2022 -7-
not have any criminal antecedents.
Taking into consideration the period of sentence
undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances
but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be
released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the
aforestated terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of."
A perusal of the said order would also show that the said case
was under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the provision of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act, 1985 were also mentioned in the same and the bail was granted
primarily by considering the petitioner (therein) had undergone custody for
a period of 01 year and 07 months and only one witness had been
examined and that the petitioner (therein) did not have any criminal
antecedents.
The Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender Singh's case
(Supra), had also held that in case, the accused person is able to make out a
case within the parameters of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in
view of the custody period, then he deserves the concession of regular bail,
even in the face of rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
10. In the present case, both the petitioners are in custody since
17.09.2020 and the investigation is complete and the challan has been
present and there are 43 witnesses, none of whom have been examined so
far and thus, the trial is likely to take time and thus, further incarceration of
the petitioners would be violative of right of the petitioners enshrined
7 of 9
226 CRM-M-29576-2022 and CRM-M-1416-2022 -8-
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
11. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, as
also the law laid down in the abovecited judgments, this Court deems it
appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners.
Further, this Court proposes to impose such conditions that would meet the
object of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
12. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioners are directed to be released on regular bail on their furnishing
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
subject to them not being required in any other case. The petitioners shall
also abide by the following conditions:-
1. The petitioners will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The petitioners will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
3. The petitioners will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.
4. The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected.
5. The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement,
threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case
so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or
to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of
bail before this Court.
8 of 9
226 CRM-M-29576-2022 and CRM-M-1416-2022 -9-
14. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as an
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 application.
All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid judgment.
September 12, 2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
nitin JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
9 of 9
