Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar @ Deepu vs State Of Punjab on 3 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100285
CRM-M-30556-2023 #1# 2023:PHHC:100285
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-30556-2023
Date of Decision:-03.08.2023
Deepak Kumar @ Deepu.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
AND
CRM-M-31452-2023
Kulwant Singh @ Pala.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the Petitioner
(in CRM-M-30556-2023).
Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, Advocate for the Petitioner
(in CRM-M-31452-2023).
Mr. G.S. Dhillon, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
By this common order I shall dispose of both the
aforementioned bail petitions as they have arisen out of one and the same
FIR.
2. The Prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is for the
grant of regular bail in case FIR No.74 dated 21.05.2021 under Sections
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100285
CRM-M-30556-2023 #2# 2023:PHHC:100285
22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Bahavwala, District
Fazilka, Punjab.
3. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty an information was received that Deepak Kumar @ Deepu
(petitioner in CRM-M-30556-2023), Baljinder Singh (since granted bail
vide order dated 29.05.2023) and Kulwant Singh @ Pala (petitioner in
CRM-M-31452-2023)) would be bringing intoxicating tablets from
Rajasthan and would sell the same. They were travelling in a car bearing
registration no.RJ-14-8C-3819 and if a nakabandi was set up they could be
apprehended along with tablets.
Based on the aforesaid information the FIR came to be
registered and subsequently the petitioners and their co-accused came to be
apprehended along with 25000 intoxicating tablets.
4. The Counsel for the petitioners contend that the mandatory
provisions regarding search and seizure have not been complied with in their
proper perspective including Sections 42, 50 & 52 of the Act. Nothing has
been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioners. As the
petitioners were in custody since 21.05.2021 and only 02 of the 18
prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the Trial of the present case
was not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, the petitioners
were entitled to the concession of bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of
West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on 01.08.2022 which had
been followed by this Court in Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-
57386-2022 Decided on 14.12.2022.
5. The Counsel for the State on the other hand contends that the
serious nature of the allegations did not entitle the petitioners to the grant of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100285
CRM-M-30556-2023 #3# 2023:PHHC:100285
bail. He however, does not dispute the fact that the petitioners are a first
time offenders, are in custody since 21.05.2021, only 02 out of 18
prosecution witnesses had been examined and their co-accused Baljinder
Singh has been granted the concession of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs.
The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on
01.08.2022 held 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 2 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."
The aforementioned decision has been followed by this Court in
the case of Balraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-57386-2022 Decided
on 14.12.2022.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100285
CRM-M-30556-2023 #4# 2023:PHHC:100285
8. In the instant case, admittedly the petitioners are stated to be in
custody since 21.05.2021. Only 02 out 18 prosecution witnesses have been
examined so far and they are first time offenders with no other case
registered against them under the NDPS Act. Therefore, the provisions of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the
salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides
for the right to speedy Trial and the petitioners can be granted the concession
of bail.
9. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioners-Deepak Kumar @ Deepu son of Sh.
Jaipal and Kulwant Sngh @ Pala son of Sh. Sher Singh are ordered to be
released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
10. The petitioners shall appear before the police station concerned
on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform
in writing each time that they are not involved in any other crime other than
the present one.
11. In addition, the petitioners (or anyone on their behalf) shall
prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and deposit the same with
the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case
of the absence of the petitioners from trial without sufficient cause.
12. The petition stands disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
JUDGE
August 03, 2023
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100285
4 of 4
