Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gautam Kumar vs Uoi Through Ncb on 1 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 1 2023:PHHC:098289
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-8596-2023
Date of decision : 01.08.2023
Gautam Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh Zonal Unit
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms.Gurmeet Kaur Gill, Sr. Panel Counsel
for UOI-NCB.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is the second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant
of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR/NCB Crime no. 62 dated 20.09.2021
registered under Sections 8, 18, 28, 29, 60, 62 of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 (in short "NDPS Act") at Police Station
NCB, Chandigarh, U.T.
2. Brief facts of the present case that the Union of India through
Ajit Pal Singh, Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Chandigarh
Zonal Unit had filed a complaint against the petitioner and co-accused
Gurminder Singh under Sections 8, 18, 28, 29 & 62 of the NDPS Act in the
Court of Judge, Special Court, under NDPS Act, 1985, Patiala. As per the
allegations in the complaint, secret information was received on 19.09.2021
at around 08:00 PM by Sanjeev Kumar, Intelligence Officer, NCB, which
was reduced into writing and the same was to the effect that Gurminder
1 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 2 2023:PHHC:098289
Singh, co-accused of the petitioner was involved in the trafficking of opium
and that he would be bringing a consignment of opium in vehicle bearing
no.PB-23-T-1041 from Rohtak to Nabha and he would cross the Bhagat
Singh Chowk on Narwana-Patran road between 09:00 hours to 10:00 hours
on 20.09.2021. Accordingly, a team was constituted and Gurminder Singh
along with one Prabhveer Singh, who was travelling in the above mentioned
vehicle, were apprehended by the NCB team. It was found that Gurminder
Singh was carrying consignment of opium in the vehicle which upon
weighing, came to be 2.625 kgs (commercial quantity stipulated for the
same starts from 2.5 kgs). On the statement of accused Gurminder Singh to
the effect that he had purchased opium from the present petitioner, the
present petitioner was implicated as an accused in the present case. In
paragraph 28 of the complaint, it has been stated that the petitioner, in
pursuance of notice issued under Section 67 of the NDPS Act, had
presented himself before Ajit Pal Singh, Intelligence Officer on 21.09.2021
and at that time, the petitioner was carrying a black coloured bag with
"TYCOON" written on it and had given Rs.45,000/- which he was carrying
in the bag to said Ajit Pal Singh, Intelligence Officer. The disclosure
statement of the petitioner was also recorded.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was not named in the secret information and no recovery of any
narcotic drugs has been effected from him. It is further submitted that the
petitioner has no concern with the vehicle bearing no. PB-23-T-1041 in
which the narcotic drugs were allegedly being carried by the co-accused. It
is stated that even as per para 28 of the complaint (page 26 of the paper
book), the petitioner had presented himself on 21.09.2021 before Ajit Pal
Singh, Intelligence Officer and as per the version given in the complaint, he
2 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 3 2023:PHHC:098289
himself had handed over Rs.45,000/- to the said Investigating Officer. It is
further stated that there is no evidence to corroborate the fact that the said
amount of Rs.45,000/- was drug money. It is submitted that the petitioner
has been implicated solely on the basis of disclosure statement made by the
co-accused and his own disclosure statement which had been recorded in
custody and is thus, inadmissible in evidence. It is further submitted that
even after the arrest of the petitioner, no narcotic drugs have been recovered
from the petitioner. On the said aspect, learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
titled as "Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu" reported as 2021(1) RCR
(Criminal) 1, order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court dated
17.06.2020 in CRM-M-12051-2020 titled "Mewa Singh Vs. State of
Punjab", and order of Coordinate Bench dated 16.07.2021 passed in CRM-
M-12997-2020 titled as "Daljit Singh Vs. State of Haryana" to contend
that in a case where the petitioner is sought to be implicated solely on the
basis of disclosure statement of co-accused and no recovery of any narcotic
has been effected from the accused even after their arrest, then the
petitioner/accused should be granted the benefit of bail. It is contended that
the petitioner has been in custody since 21.09.2021 and out of 6 witnesses,
4 witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time.
It is further contended that the petitioner is not involved in any other case
under the NDPS Act and the previous bail application of the petitioner was
dismissed as withdrawn at that stage on 15.11.2022 and even thereafter,
sufficient time has lapsed but the trial has not concluded, thus, entitling the
petitioner to file present bail application. It is stated that any further
incarceration would be violative of the right of the petitioner enshrined
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the
3 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 4 2023:PHHC:098289
petitioner has relied upon various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
wherein, solely on the basis of the custody, the concession of bail has been
granted. Reliance has also been placed upon an order of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court in CRM3773-2019 in CRA-D-198-DB-2017
in case titled as "Bhupender Singh Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau".
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India
on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has
submitted that the recovery which has been effected from Gurminder Singh,
co-accused is of 2.625 kgs. opium which would fall within the ambit of
commercial quantity inasmuch as the commercial quantity stipulated for the
same starts from 2.5 kgs. It is submitted that Gurminder Singh from whom
the recovery has been effected, has named the present petitioner in his
disclosure statement as the person who had supplied the recovered opium to
him and had even given the details of his identity and in pursuance of the
said disclosure statement, notice under Section 67 of the NDPS Act was
issued to the present petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner, on 21.09.2021,
had appeared before Ajit Pal Singh, Intelligence Officer and had handed
over a bag along with Rs.45,000/- which as per the case of the prosecution,
is drug money. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in three
other cases i.e., case no.68/17 dated 11.11.2017 under Sections 341, 342,
323, 324, 325, 307, 354, 448, 34 IPC registered at P.S. Vashishstnagar
(Jharkhand), case no.84/18 dated 05.12.2018 under Sections 341, 342, 323,
324, 379, 34 IPC registered at PS Vashishtnagar (Jharkhand) and case
no.26/20 dated 05.05.2020 under Sections 143, 341, 448, 323, 504, 506, 34
IPC registered at PS Vashishtnagar (Jharkhand) and thus, the petitioner does
not deserve the concession of regular bail. Other facts have, however, not
been disputed.
4 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 5 2023:PHHC:098289
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted
that as far as the case no.26/20 and case no.84/18 are concerned, the
petitioner has already been found innocent and the challan has not been
presented against him. With respect to the other case, learned counsel for
the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another", reported
as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the
present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail
application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the
petitioner is involved in other cases. 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."
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
7. The petitioner was not named in the secret information received
nor was apprehended along with the narcotic drugs which were being
carried by co-accused Gurminder Singh and Prabhveer Singh in vehicle
bearing no. PB-23-T-1041 which, as per the case of the prosecution, was
rented by Gurminder Singh from Prabhveer Singh, who was driving the
same. The petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the basis of
disclosure statement made by Gurminder Singh to the effect that it was the
petitioner, who had supplied the recovered opium to Gurminder Singh
although even after the arrest of the present petitioner, no recovery of any
5 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 6 2023:PHHC:098289
narcotic drug has been effected from him and the primary piece of evidence
against the petitioner is the disclosure statement of Gurminder Singh as well
as his own disclosure statement made while in custody.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh's case (supra), had
observed as under:-
"152. Thus, to arrive at the conclusion that a confessional
statement made before an officer designated under section 42 or
section 53 can be the basis to convict a person under the NDPS
Act, without any non obstante clause doing away with section 25 of
the Evidence Act, and without any safeguards, would be a direct
infringement of the constitutional guarantees contained in Articles
14, 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution of India."
9. A coordinate Bench of this Court Mewa Singh's case (supra),
had passed the following order-
"1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of
anticipatory bail in a case registered against him vide FIR No.133
dated 24.11.2019 under Section 21 NDPS Act Police Station
Lohian, District Jalandhar.
2. Reply way of affidavit of Mr. Piara Singh, PPS, Deputy
Superintendent ofPolice, Sub-Division Shahkot, District Jalandhar
(Rural) on behalf of the respondent-State has been filed, which is
taken on record.
3. The allegations in nut-shell are that Bachittar Singh was found
in possession of 1.7 Kgs. 'Heroin'. During the course of
interrogation, he made a disclosure statement nominating the
petitioner as an accused wherein he stated that the contraband in
question had been supplied by the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has
falsely been implicated in the present case and was never arrested
at the spot and that the alleged disclosure statement is not worth
credence.
5. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that
keeping in view the antecedents of the petitioner his complicity is
clearly evident inasmuch as he stands involved in three other cases
i.e. FIR No.43 dated 2.4.2016 under Sections 15, 21, 22 NDPS Act,
Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi; FIR No.5 dated 5.1.2020 under
Sections 307, 186, 332, 353, 224, 225, 427, 148, 149 IPC, Police
6 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 7 2023:PHHC:098289
Station Sultanpur Lodhi & FIR No.193 dated 193 dated
22.11.2019 under Sections 15, 21, 25, 29 NDPS Act, Police Station
Kartarpur.
6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.
7. It is not disputed that the petitioner was never apprehended at
the spot and that the only evidence against him is in the shape of
disclosure statement, the admissibility and veracity of which would
be tested during the course of trial. As regards the other three
cases which are stated to be pending against the petitioner, the
learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in the
said cases he has been falsely implicated and was never arrested at
the spot and has been granted anticipatory bail in all three cases.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
that it is a case where the petitioner has been nominated solely on
the basis of disclosure statement, the petition is accepted and it is
ordered that the petitioner in the event of his arrest shall be
released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer.
However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when
called upon to do so and cooperate with the
Arresting/Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the
conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.
9. It is however clarified that in case the petitioner does not join
investigation, it shall be open to the investigating
agency/prosecution to move for cancellation of his bail."
10. Another coordinate Bench of this Court in Daljit Singh's case
(supra) judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail under Section
438 Cr.P.C. in case bearing FIR No.188 dated 08.04.2020
registered under Sections 15, 18, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act, under
Sections 140, 188, 216, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 474 IPC and
under Section 6 of Official Secret Act at Police Station Pehowa,
District Kurukshetra.
Petitioner has been implicated on the basis of disclosure
statement of co-accused from whom 248 kgs of poppy husk, 1 Kg
500 grams of opium and 199 Kgs khas khas were recovered.
FIR was registered on the basis of secret information, but
still name of petitioner did not figure in the ruqa of the police.
Notice of motion was issued on 27.05.2020 alongwith
7 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 8 2023:PHHC:098289
interim directions in favour of the petitioner to join the
investigation.
Order dated 27.05.2020 is reproduced here as under:-
"On account of outbreak of covid-19 the instant matter is
being taken up through video conferencing.
Instant petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.PC for
grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.188 dated
8.4.2020 for the offences under Section 15,18,27-A,29 of NDPS
Act, 1985 at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia contended
that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the case only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused
from whom recovery of 248 kgs of poppy husk, 1 kg 500 grams of
opium and 199 kgs.of khas khas was recovered. It has been further
contended that the factum of his false implication is further
fortified from the fact that the recovery of the aforementioned
narcotic contraband was effected on the basis of secret
information and his name did not figure either in the ruka sent by
the police nor in the FIR in question coupled with the fact that
nothing was recovered from him. He is not even involved in any
other case of similar nature.
Notice of motion for 10.7.2020.
On the asking of the Court, Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG.,
Haryana accepts notice.
Meanwhile, petitioner is directed to join the investigation
and appear before the investigating agency/Investigating Officer.
On his appearance, he shall be released on interim bail to the
satisfaction of arresting/investigating officer. The petitioner shall,
join the investigation as and when call for and shall abide by the
conditions specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
27.05.2020 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
JUDGE
Thereafter, the case was adjourned for filing detailed reply
on behalf of the State.
The stands of the State is that the petitioner was escorting
the canter in which the contraband was present and he was
assigned the duty of giving signal in case of presence of police on
the way.
Learned State counsel relies upon call details, tower
location of the petitioner and the co-accused and also relies upon
bank statement showing deposit of amount in the account of co-
accused. The material on which the learned State counsel relies
8 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 9 2023:PHHC:098289
upon is dependent upon the evidence to be led in that context at the
relevant stage.
Petitioner has joined the investigation, but learned State
counsel seeks custody of the petitioner on the aforesaid premise.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the
petitioner having involved on the basis of disclosure statement of
co-accused namely Balbir and Rajinder is hit by the ratio of Tofan
Singh vs State of Tamil Nadu, Criminal Appeal No.152 of 2013
wherein it has been observed that the officers who are invested
with powers under Section 53 of NDPS Act are the police officers
within the meaning of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Any
confessional statement made before the police officer would be hit
by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Statement under Section 67 of
NDPS Act cannot be used as a confessional statement in the trial
of an offence under NDPS Act.
In view of aforesaid position, it would be just and
appropriate to confirm order dated 27.05.2020, without meaning
anything on the merits of the case.
Ordered accordingly.
However, the petitioner shall keep on joining the
investigation as and when required to do so by the Investigating
Officer and shall abide by the conditions as envisaged under
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
Petition stands disposed of."
11. A perusal of the above said judgments, more so the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh's case (supra) would show that it
was held that a confessional statement made before an officer designated
under Section 42 or Section 53 of the Act, if made the basis to convict a
person under the NDPS Act, without any safeguards, would be an
infringement of the constitutional guarantee contained in Articles 14, 20(3)
and 21 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of paragraph 28 of the
complaint would show that it was the petitioner who had presented himself
before the Intelligence Officer on 21.09.2021 and had handed over
Rs.45,000/- to Ajit Pal Singh, Intelligence Officer which, as per the case of
9 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 10 2023:PHHC:098289
the prosecution, is drug money. It is the case of the petitioner that there is
no evidence to show that the said money was drug money and mere
recovery of money cannot be made the basis for convicting the present
petitioner. This Court does not wish to give any affirmative opinion on the
said aspect as the said issue would be a matter of trial, which would be
considered by the trial Court on the basis of evidence led by the parties
during the course of trial. Undisputedly, the petitioner has been in custody
since 21.09.2021 and out of 6 witnesses, 4 witnesses are yet to be examined
and thus, the trial is likely to take time and the petitioner is not involved in
any other case under the NDPS Act.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even in a
case which involves commercial quantity, the accused can be released on
regular bail by taking into consideration the long period of custody of the
accused. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court dated 04.05.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No(s).3221/2023 in case titled as "Hasanujjaman and others Vs. The
State of West Bengal", in which it had been observed as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx xxx. They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody
for more than one year and four months.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully
perused the record.
4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed, though
the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take
some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court
to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges.
The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is, thus,
substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the
merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail
subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.
6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are found
involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall
10 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 11 2023:PHHC:098289
amount to misuse of the concession of bail granted to them today, and in
such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.
7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the Trial
Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again be taken
as a misuse of concession of bail.
8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed
of."
A perusal of the same would show that in the abovesaid case,
the custody of the accused was 1 year and 4 months and while taking into
consideration the fact that investigation has been completed as well as that
the conclusion of trial would take time, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was
pleased to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioners therein.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as "Mohammad
Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State of Gujarat", vide order dated
22.08.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 was
pleased to observe 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 of."
The above-said case was also a case under the NDPS Act 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
11 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 12 2023:PHHC:098289
Court had observed that the concession of bail was being 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.
14. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 titled
as "Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal", vide order
dated 07.02.2020, 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 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 tobe 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."
15. In another case i.e., Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 titled as
12 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 13 2023:PHHC:098289
"Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India," vide order
dated 05.08.2022, 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 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 and primarily, considering the
longevity of the custody period, concession of bail was granted to the
petitioner (therein).
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022 titled as "Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The
13 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 14 2023:PHHC:098289
State of West Bengal", vide order dated 01.08.2022, was pleased to observe
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 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 and the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
were also mentioned in the same and the concession of 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.
17. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in Bhupender'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 on the
basis of period of custody, then he deserves the concession of regular bail,
even in the face of rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
18. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.04.2023
14 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 15 2023:PHHC:098289
passed in CRM-M-19626-2022 titled as "Roop Singh Vs. State of Punjab"
has granted the concession of regular bail in a case involving recovery of
commercial quantity of poppy husk where the custody was for a period of 1
year, 6 months and 26 days on the ground of long incarceration of the
accused person being in violation of right to speedy trial enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
19. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances as well
as the law laid down in the above-said judgments, the present petition is
allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being required in any other
case. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
a). The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during
the trial.
b). The petitioner will not pressurize / intimidate the
prosecution witness(s).
c). The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the
date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
d). The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which
he is suspected.
e). The petitioner 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 from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence.
20. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the
15 of 16
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
CRM-M-8596-2023 16 2023:PHHC:098289
prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail
before this Court.
21. Nothing stated above shall be construed as a final 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 petition.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
August 01, 2023
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:098289
16 of 16
