Punjab-Haryana High Court
Laxmi Singh @ Muskan vs State Of Punjab on 9 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103254
CRM-M-60141-2022 N.C. no.: 2023:PHHC:103254
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
213
CRM-M-60141-2022
Date of decision: 09.08.2023
Laxmi Singh @ Muskan
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. H.S. Sullar, Sr. DAG Punjab
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 18 dated 24.01.2020,
registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Special
Task Force, District STF Wing, SAS Nagar.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, a lady aged 43 years,
has been in custody for 3 years and about 7 months. The alleged recovery effected
from her was 560g of heroin. The mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS
Act was not complied with and no independent witness was joined while effecting
the recovery. Even the recovery memo was not got signed from her. Charges have
been framed but only 3 out of 12 PWs have been examined. She is involved in one
more case under the NDPS Act wherein non-commercial quantity of contraband
was recovered and she is on bail in the said case. In this regard, reliance is placed
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103254
CRM-M-60141-2022 N.C. no.: 2023:PHHC:103254
on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 08.08.2023, filed by the learned State
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for 3
years 6 months 16 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner who was
apprehended at the spot. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with
regard to the stage of the case and the petitioner being on bail in another case.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "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."
7. 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 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 versus The
State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon'ble
The Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103254
CRM-M-60141-2022 N.C. no.: 2023:PHHC:103254
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 the 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 06.2.2023, this Court granted bail to the petitioner from whom
commercial 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 Article 21 of
the Constitution of India.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that
the petitioner is in custody for the last 3 years, 6 months and 16 days; on bail in
the other case; only 3 out of 12 prosecution witnesses have yet been examined, the
trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner
would be violative of her 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.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103254
CRM-M-60141-2022 N.C. no.: 2023:PHHC:103254
9. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered
to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to her 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, she is an accused, or for commission
of which she is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce,
induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted
with the facts of 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 her liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish her 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.
10. 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.
11. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein
above are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103254
CRM-M-60141-2022 N.C. no.: 2023:PHHC:103254
construed as any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed
independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
09.08.2023
Mehak
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103254
5 of 5
