Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baljit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 30 September, 2022
CRM-M-42331-2021 & 1
CRM-M-53481-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: September 30, 2022
1. CRM-M-42331-2021
Baljit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
2. CRM-M-53481-2021
Gursewak Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
Present: Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Arora, DAG, Punjab.
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
This order shall dispose of CRM-M-42331-2021 and CRM-
M-53481-2021, which have been filed by Baljit Singh and Gursewak
Singh, respectively, under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, for grant of regular bail to them in FIR No. 78, dated
16.02.2021, under Sections 22, 25 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station City,
Barnala, District Barnala.
Order dated 14.09.2022, passed by this Court, says as
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.10.01 15:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-53481-2021
under:-
" Learned counsel for the petitioner (in CRM-M-
53481-2022) submits that recovery in the present case is of
1500 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride and the
said recovery has been planted against both the petitioners.
He further submits that though there is bar of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, still, being it a case of recovery of double to
the non-commercial quantity, sympathetic view can be taken
considering long custody and slow pace of trial.
In this regard, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that both the accused-petitioners are
inside jail for the last about 01 year and 07 months and trial
is at a very slow pace. In support of his submissions, learned
counsel for the petitioner cites two judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court rendered in SLP (Crl.) No. 5769 of 2022, titled
as, "Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West
Bengal", decided on 01.08.2022 and SLP (Crl.) No.4173 of
2022, titled as, "Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. The State of
West Bengal", decided on 04.08.2022.
On the other hand, learned State counsel prays
for a short accommodation, on the premise that briefs of
both these petitions are not available with him today.
Adjourned to 30.09.2022.
Meanwhile, learned State counsel will ascertain
the total number of prosecution witnesses and how many
have already been examined in the present case.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of
another connected case."
Learned State counsel has filed separate replies, dated
27.08.2022, as also produced custody certificates, dated 29.09.2022, in
both cases, today in the Court, which are taken on record. Copies of the
same have been supplied to learned counsel for the petitioner(s).
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) argues that though it is
a case of commercial quantity recovered from the petitioner(s), but one
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.10.01 15:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-53481-2021
fact still remains that despite long incarceration, petitioner(s) are inside
jail for more than 1 year and 7 months and trial is not progressing.
Learned counsel further submits that being there no other case registered
against the petitioner(s), they cannot be forced to remain in jail for
indefinite period without examining of the witnesses at the earliest. In
support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) reiterate
reliance upon judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the cases
of "Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal" (SLP
(Crl.) No. 5769 of 2022, decided on 01.08.2022) and "Shariful Islam
@ Sarif v. The State of West Bengal" (SLP (Crl.) No. 4173 of 2022,
decided on 04.08.2022).
On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that after
completion of investigation, challan was presented on 30.04.2021 and
charges were framed a year back, i.e. on 20.09.2021. Learned State
counsel further informed the Court that out of total 27 prosecution
witnesses, one PW has been examined and the next date before learned
trial Court is fixed for 26.10.2022, for recording evidence of remaining
prosecution witnesses. Learned State counsel further submits that from
the possession of petitioner(s), recovery of 10,000 intoxicant tablets of
CARISOMA and 1500 intoxicant tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride,
was effected and both the accused were arrested from the spot. He
further submits that the said quantity is commercial in nature so bar under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply against them.
Be that as it may. I have heard learned counsel for the
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.10.01 15:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-53481-2021
parties, perused pleadings as well as replies filed by the respondent-State
in these petitions and also gone through the custody certificates produced
today in the Court.
As per custody certificates, petitioner(s), namely, Baljit
Singh and Gursewak Singh, have already undergone custody period of 1
year, 7 months and 11 days. No other case under the NDPS Act is shown
to have been registered against them.
Another noticeable fact is that challan in the present case
was filed on 30.04.2021 and charges were framed on 20.09.2021, i.e.
more than a year back, but till date out of 27 prosecution witnesses, only
one has been examined, for the reasons best known to the prosecution.
Undoubtedly, there is delay in conducting of trial and accused cannot be
detained in jail for indefinite period without conducting a speedy trial qua
the allegations levelled against them by the prosecution.
On the basis of submissions made by both the sides and
observations recorded here above, I deem appropriate to pass an order for
release of the petitioner(s) on bail.
Accordingly, these criminal miscellaneous petitions are
allowed. Petitioner(s), namely, Baljit Singh and Gursewak Singh, are
ordered to be released on bail in this case, subject to furnishing of
bail/surety bonds by each one of them to the satisfaction of the learned
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Illaqua Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned,
if not required in any other case.
It is made clear that the petitioner(s) shall not extend any
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.10.01 15:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
CRM-M-53481-2021
threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner
directly or indirectly. In case, petitioner(s) are found involved in future
in any matter under the NDPS Act, prosecution would be at liberty to
move appropriate application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the
petitioner(s) in the present case.
The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as
an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the
case on the basis of evidence available on record.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
September 30, 2022
Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO
PRASHANT KAPOOR
2022.10.01 15:49
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment
