Punjab-Haryana High Court
Baldev Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 August, 2023
CRM-M-34450-2022 2023:PHHC:102055
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
213 CRM-M-34450-2022
Date of decision: 08.08.2023
Baldev Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present : Mr. Siddarth Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for
the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.156, dated 31.12.2021,
registered under Sections 15 & 61 of NDPS Act, 1985 (however challan submitted
under Sections 15-C, 29/61/85 of NDPS Act), at Police Station Bahawala, District
Fazilka.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for 1 year
and more than 7 months. He was a driver of the truck and had no knowledge about
the articles that had been loaded, especially in view of the fact that the owner of
the truck was also travelling in the said vehicle. Though, charges have been
framed on 28.03.2022, however, out of 10 prosecution witnesses, 6 have been
examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act.
3. The custody certificate dated 07.08.2023 has been filed by learned
State counsel. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for the last 1 year, 7
months and 6 days.
Ankur Goyal
2023.08.08 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-34450-2022 2023:PHHC:102055
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the truck which was
being driven by the petitioner. He is however unable to controvert the submissions
with regard to stage of the case and the petitioner not being involved in any other
case under the NDPS Act.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla
vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No.6690/2022 decided on
25.01.2023 observed that in a case of long custody period, involving quantity
recovered to be of commercial nature, where the trial is yet to commence, though
charges had been framed, the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be
dispensed with. Similarly, in the case of Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. The State of
West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon'ble The
Supreme Court of India granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of
commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and
6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In
the case of Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.)
706, the Division Bench of this Court observed with regard to achieving balance
between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. This Court in the case of Balraj
Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-57386-2022, decided on 14.12.2022 has
followed the dictum laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted bail to
the petitioner therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months.
In the case of Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, decided
on 06.02.2023, this Court granted bail to a first offender from whom commercial
Ankur Goyal
2023.08.08 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-34450-2022 2023:PHHC:102055
quantity of contraband had been recovered and only 2 out of 13 PWs have been
examined, by observing that in view of delayed trial, the rigors of Section 37 of
NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent and the petitioner can be granted bail,
keeping in mind the right to a speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that
the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 7 months and 6 days; not involved in
any other case under the NDPS Act; charges stand framed on 28.03.2022,
however, 6 out of 10 prosecution witnesses, have been examined, the trial is likely
to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be
violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and
the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right
to a speedy trial, thus the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be
allowed.
8. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered
to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to him not being
required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-
(i). The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the
trial.
(ii). The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
(iii). The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and
every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of
Court.
(iv). The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which
he is suspected of.
(v). The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce,
threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of
Ankur Goyal
2023.08.08 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-34450-2022 2023:PHHC:102055
the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts
to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the
evidence in any manner.
(vi). The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
(vii). The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to
the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the
conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner
seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done
only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the
reason for the same.
(viii).The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(ix). The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.
9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein
are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as
an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of
the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
08.08.2023
Ankur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Ankur Goyal
2023.08.08 18:03
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this order/judgment
