Punjab-Haryana High Court

Joga Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 August, 2023

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100677




                                                             2023:PHHC:100677


CRM-M-36867-2023 (O & M)                                                           ::1::-


     (216) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                                  CRM-M-36867-2023 (O & M)
                                                    Date of Decision: 04.08.2023

Joga Singh

                                                                         ... Petitioner

                                         Versus
State of Punjab
                                                                        ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:     Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate,
             for Mr. Rajesh Kapila, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Gurlal Singh Dhillon, AAG, Punjab.

                   ****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in this second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is

for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.119 dated

17.09.2021 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act registered at Police Station

Sambhu, District Patiala.

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

patrolling duty, two persons were seen coming carrying a heavy back-pack of

black and purple colour. On seeing the police party, both of them threw the

back-pack on the side of the roads and tried to run away. However, they were

chased on suspicion and apprehended. The hair-cut person disclosed his

name as Joga Singh (petitioner) and the other person wearing a parna

disclosed his name as Sukhdev Singh alias Sukha. From the aforesaid back-

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100677

2023:PHHC:100677

CRM-M-36867-2023 (O & M) ::2::-

pack, total 450 strips were found. On checking of mark and batch number of

the strips, different batch numbers of strips were found. In each strip 60/60

intoxicant tablets of light green colour, having mark Diphenoxylate

Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulphate Tablets IP Lomotil were written its batch

numbers 03L21053 Mfg. Date 07/2021 Expiry 02/2024 MRP. Rs.21.05/- for

20 Tabs. Incl. of all taxes is written. Total 21960 intoxicant tablets were

recovered and in remaining 84 strips 60/60 intoxicant tablets having Mark

Diphenoxylate Hydrochloride & Atropine Sulphate Tablets IP Lomotil were

written its batch numbers 03L21051 Mfg. Date 07/2021 Expiry 02/2024

MRP. Rs. 21.05/- for 20 Tabs Incl. of all taxes is written, total 5040 intoxicant

tablets of light green colour were recovered. Thus, a total recovery of 27000

intoxicant tablets was effected in the present case.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of

Sections 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 he was a first-time offender, in custody since 17.09.2021 and

only 04 out of the 10 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the trial of

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

he 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,

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100677

2023:PHHC:100677

CRM-M-36867-2023 (O & M) ::3::-

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 was a first time offender, in custody since 17.09.2021 and only

04 out of the 10 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 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.




                                 3 of 6

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100677




                                                             2023:PHHC:100677


CRM-M-36867-2023 (O & M)                                                           ::4::-

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 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,

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100677

2023:PHHC:100677

CRM-M-36867-2023 (O & M) ::5::-

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

17.09.2021 and only 04 out of the 10 prosecution witnesses have been

examined so far. He is also a first-time offender with no other case registered

against him. 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

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.





                                  5 of 6

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:100677




                                                              2023:PHHC:100677


CRM-M-36867-2023 (O & M)                                                            ::6::-

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

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Joga Singh is ordered to be released on

bail subject to her 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 he is not involved in any other crime other than the

present case.

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

an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.