Darshan [email protected] vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 5704 P&H

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060945




CRM-M-13504-2023 (O&M)                        -1-    2023:PHHC:060945


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                              CRM-M-13504-2023 (O&M)
                                              Date of Decision: 28.04.2023


Darshan Singh @ Dassa
                                                                  ....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus

State of Punjab

                                                              .....Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:    Mr. A.K. Khubbar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Mr. Arun William, AAG, Punjab.

                         ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the

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

No. 17 dated 31.01.2021, under Sections 22-25-61-85 of NDPS Act,

registered at Police Station Sardulgarh, District Mansa.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is in custody for 2 years and 3 months and the charges in the

present case were framed on 04.02.2022. He submitted that more than 1

year has elapsed after the framing of the charges but no prosecution witness

has been examined till date. He submitted that it is a case where the

petitioner is having clean antecedents and he is not involved in any other

case and was falsely implicated in the present case only on the ground that

he was a pillion rider and as per the allegations, he was holding a bag from

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060945

CRM-M-13504-2023 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:060945

where there was alleged recovery of 855 tablets of Tramadol. He submitted

that in fact the false implication was based upon political enmity and the

other co-accused who was driving the motorcycle namely Satpal Singh @

Satta who is at parity with the petitioner has been extended the benefit of

regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-59343-2022 on 21.03.2023 on the

ground that after the framing of the charges no single witness has been

examined and now even more than 1 month has elapsed after the grant of

bail by this Court as aforesaid, still no prosecution witness has been

examined. He submitted that since the petitioner is at parity with the

aforesaid co-accused namely Satpal Singh @ Satta, he may be considered

for the grant of regular bail.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Arun William, learned AAG, Punjab

has submitted that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody for 2 years

and 3 months but till date no prosecution witness has been examined. He

further submitted on instructions from ASI Hardev Singh that there is no

other case against the petitioner. The parity with the other co-accused has

also not been disputed.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The petitioner has faced incarceration for 2 years and 3 months.

The charges were frame don 04.02.2022 but no prosecution witness has been

examined till date. The petitioner is not involved in any other case and has

got clean antecedents. The other co-accused namely Satpal Singh @ Satta

has already been extended the benefit of regular bail by considering the fact

that more than 1 year has elapsed after the framing of the charges, no

prosecution witness has been examined and in view of the judgment of the

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060945

CRM-M-13504-2023 (O&M) -3- 2023:PHHC:060945

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of

Investigation and another [2022 (10) SCC 51] and in the light of Article

21 of the Constitution of India, the bar contained under Section 37 of the

NDPS Act would not apply. Therefore in the present case also rather after

the grant of bail to the other co-accused even again one month has elapsed

but no prosecution witness has been examined. Even recently the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Versus State (NCT of Delhi)

[Criminal Appeal No.943 of 2023] also observed that the bar contained

under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is to be considered in the light of long

custody in a given facts and circumstances of any case.

6. The other co-accused who is stated to be parity with the present

petitioner has already been extended the benefit of bail by this Court after

considering the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, therefore

the present petitioner will also be entitled for the grant of regular bail.

7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner

shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not

required in any other case.

8. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as

an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose

of deciding the present petition only.

28.04.2023                           (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh                                         JUDGE
         Whether speaking                     :   Yes/No
         Whether reportable                   :   Yes/No




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:060945

                                     3 of 3