Ranjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 11921 P&H

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100898




 CRM-M-37127-2023                    #1#                   2023:PHHC:100898

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.


                                                          CRM-M-37127-2023

                                                 Date of Decision:-04.08.2023

Ranjit Kaur.

                                                                   ......Petitioner.
                                       Vs.

State of Punjab.

                                                                 ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-   Mr. J.K. Singla, Advocate for the Petitioner.

            Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.

                                 ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The Prayer in this third petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is for

the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.121 dated 27.08.2021 under Sections

22, 29 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Bareta, District Mansa.

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on

patrolling duty and going towards Bareta from village Dharampura then two

ladies were seen stitting their hands in transparent bag held by them. On

seeing the police vehicle they got perplexed and sufddently tried to stand up

along with the bag. The police party stopped the vehicles and apprehended

the ladies. They disclosed their names as Ranjit Kaur (petitioner) wife of

Gurmail Singh and Preet Kaur daughter of Sh. Karnail Singh. A recovery

of 1000 tablets of Tramwel 100-SR came to be effected from the bag.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been

falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of Sections

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100898

CRM-M-37127-2023 #2# 2023:PHHC:100898

42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in their proper

perspective. No independent witness was joined at the time of search and

seizure. As she was a first-time offender, in custody since 27.08.2021 and

none of the 09 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the trial of

the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore,

she was entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The

State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment

and order dated 04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on

01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,

SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final judgment and

order dated 29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on

04.05.2023.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that

commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner.

Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,

the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes

that the petitioner is a first time offender, in custody since 27.08.2021 and

none of the 09 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

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

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 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

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100898

CRM-M-37127-2023 #3# 2023:PHHC:100898

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."

7. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,

SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

"1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave Petition, who were accused of committing an offence under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS Act') in FIR No.18/2022, dated 09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.

2. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100898

CRM-M-37127-2023 #4# 2023:PHHC:100898

possession of the petitioners. 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 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.

(emphasis supplied)

8. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since

27.08.2021 and none of the 09 prosecution witnesses had been examined so

far. She is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against

her. In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted

to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100898

CRM-M-37127-2023 #5# 2023:PHHC:100898

Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the

case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail.

9. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Ranjit Kaur wife of Sh. Gurmail

Singh is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds

and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate,

concerned.

10. The petitioner 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 she is not involved in any other crime other than

the present case.

11. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on her behalf) shall

prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/- 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 petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

12. The petition stands disposed of.

                                                ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                     JUDGE
August 04, 2023
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                     Yes/No
        Whether reportable                            Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100898

5 of 5