Farukh vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 21068 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Farukh vs State Of Punjab on 5 December, 2023

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155469




                                                           2023:PHHC:155469
CRM-M-59863-2023                                             -1-

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

                                                        CRM-M-59863-2023
                                                  Date of Decision: 05.12.2023

FARUKH
                                                                      ... Petitioner

                                        Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                     ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:     Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

          Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
                     ****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for

the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.139 dated 19.05.2021

registered under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station

Phillaur, District Jalandhar Rural.

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

patrolling duty, two people were seen coming on a motorcycle who tried to

turn the same on seeing the police party. However, the motorcycle slipped

and both the persons fell off the same. The driver of the motorcycle disclosed

his name as Farukh (petitioner) son of Hakam Ali and the pillion rider who

was carrying a heavy plastic bag kept on his thigh disclosed his name as

Navjot Singh alias Navi son of Manjit Singh. The recovery of 2150

intoxicating tablets came to be effected from the polythene packet.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There was violation

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155469

2023:PHHC:155469

of mandatory provisions of the Act regarding search and seizure including

Sections 42 and 50. The petitioner was in custody since 19.05.2021 and only

02 out of the 10 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. Therefore,

the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In

one other case registered against the petitioner bearing FIR No.125 dated

17.07.2017 under Section 22 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of Arms Act

Police Station Bhargo Camp, he is on bail. He, therefore, prays that 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, the petitioner was

entitled to the concession of bail.

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

petitioner is an accused in one other case under the NDPS Act. Therefore, he

was not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the

petitioner was in custody since 19.05.2021, only 02 of the 10 prosecution

witnesses had been examined so far and in one other case registered against

him, he had been granted the concession of bail. The copy of the said order

dated 30.10.2017 is marked as X.

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

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155469

2023:PHHC:155469

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.

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:-

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155469

2023:PHHC:155469

"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, 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.

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155469

2023:PHHC:155469

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. Admittedly, in 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan' (supra) and

'Hasanujjaman & others' (supra), the accused therein had been granted the

concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone

approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time

offenders as is borne out from the orders.

9. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone more than two

and a half years of custody. In the one other case registered against him, he

has been granted the concession of bail. In view of the fact that the petitioner

has undergone a substantial period of custody, 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.

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

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Farukh son of Hakam Ali 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.

11. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned

on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155469

2023:PHHC:155469

in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the

cases mentioned in this order.

12. 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.

13. The petition stands disposed of.

                                                      (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
                                                           JUDGE

05.12.2023
JITESH              Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
                    Whether reportable:-      Yes/No




                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155469

                                 6 of 6