Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naunihal Singh @ Jodha vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 2023
2023:PHHC:058097
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRM-M-37302-2021 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-25.4.2023
Naunihal Singh @ Jodha ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab,
assisted by ASI Balbir Chand.
*****
FIR No. Dated Police Station Section/s
201 4.10.2019 Goraya, District 22 of Narcotic Drugs and
Jalandhar Rural Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 and Section 188 IPC
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
CRM-18087-2023
In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed and the applicant/petitioner is permitted to amend the petition. The
amended petition annexed with the application is taken on record.
CRM-M-37302-2021 (Main Case)
1. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of
regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.
2. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner was apprehended by the police
on 4.10.2019 while in possession of 2200 tablets (total weighing 609.4
grams) of psychotropic substance containing 'Tramadol Hydrochloride'.
PANKAJ KAKKAR
2023.04.25 17:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-37302-2021 (O&M) (2) 2023:PHHC:058097
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that the petitioner
has been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 3 years and 6
months and since the trial is proceeding at snail's pace as only 3 PWs out of
the cited 9 PWs have been examined till date, the petitioner cannot be kept
behind bars for an indefinite period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since it is a
case, wherein the petitioner was caught red-handed while in possession of
'commercial' quantity of contraband, no case for grant of bail is made out.
Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner as on date
has been behind bars since the last more than 3 years and 6 months. It has
also been informed that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court.
6. Since the petitioner seeks grant of bail mainly on account of long custody, it
is apposite to refer to a few judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this
regard wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the concession of bail
solely on ground of long custody :-
Case Number Date of Title of case Period which the
Decision accused had undergone
when granted bail by
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Criminal 07.02.2020 Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. 1 year and 7 months
Appeal No. the State of West Bengal
245/2020
Criminal 12.10.2020 Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of 2 years and 7 months
Appeal No. Himachal Pradesh
668/2020
PANKAJ KAKKAR
2023.04.25 17:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-37302-2021 (O&M) (3) 2023:PHHC:058097
Special Leave 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. 1 year and 7 months
to Appeal the State of West Bengal
(Crl.) No.
5769/2022
Special Leave 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. 1 year and 6 months
to Appeal the State of West Bengal
(Crl.) No.
4173 of 2022
Criminal 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna Patra @ 2 years 1 month and 17
Appeal No. Gopalrusma Vs. Union of days
1169 of 2022 India
Special Leave 22.08.2022 Mohammad Salman Hanif About 2 years
to Appeal Shaikh Vs. the State of
(Crl.) No. Gujarat
5530-2022
Criminal 22.11.2022 Karnail Singh Vs. The State 1 Year and 8 months
Appeal No. of Odisha
2027-2022
Special Leave 25.11.2022 Karim Adaldar Vs. The State 10 months
to Appeal of West Bengal
(Crl.) No.
8653-2022
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in yet another judgment dated 25.1.2023 arising out
of SLP No.6690-2022 titled Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh has granted bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act where the
accused alongwith co-accused was found in possession of 'commercial'
quantity of 'Ganja' and had been behind bars since the last two and a half
years while observing that in the absence of any criminal antecedents, the
conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be dispensed with at that
stage, particularly when there was delay in conclusion of trial.
8. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner, who is a lady, has been behind
bars since the last more than 3 years and 6 months and is not shown to be
involved in any other case, this Court is of the opinion that provisions of
Section 37 of NDPS Act at this stage can be dispensed with in the present
case.
PANKAJ KAKKAR
2023.04.25 17:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-37302-2021 (O&M) (4) 2023:PHHC:058097
9. The petition, as such, is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released
on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
10. It is, however, directed that in case the petitioner is found to be indulging in
similar offence again, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an
application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
25.4.2023 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
pankaj Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
PANKAJ KAKKAR
2023.04.25 17:58
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
