Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tekan Ganju @ Tekan Ganjhu vs State Of Punjab on 5 December, 2023
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155246
2023:PHHC:155246
CRM-M-60075-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(237)
CRM-M-60075-2023
Date of decision:- 05.12.2023
Tekan Ganju @ Tekan Ganjhu ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Kanwaljeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab
for State-respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. seeking
grant of post-arrest bail in:-
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
0040 02.03.2023 GRP Ludhiana, 18 and 29 of the NDPS Act
District Govt. Rly. (Section 27 of the NDPS Act was
Police, Ludhiana added later on)
2. Version of the prosecution is that FIR, Annexure P-1, has been
registered when on suspicion, 04 adults searched at one of the railway
platforms of Ludhiana and were found to be carrying 01 Kg. opium each.
The four individuals i.e. 02 males and 02 females identified themselves as
Damodar Kumar Rana, Tiken Ganju @ Tiken Ganjhu (present petitioner),
Chandu Devi and Ramiya Devi.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155246
2023:PHHC:155246
3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that separate recoveries have
been made from all the 04 accused and the recovery individually made is
non-commercial. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Amar Singh Ramjibhai Barot Versus State of Gujarat (2005) 7
SCC 550 as well as judgment dated 11.01.2021 passed by this Court in
CRM-M-33684-2020 titled as Amit Dhanak Versus State of Haryana. He
has placed reliance upon order dated 25.08.2023 passed by this Court,
Annexure P-2, preferred by co-accused, who is similarly placed, has been
released on bail. He asserts that the petitioner, who has a clean past and is in
custody since 06.03.2023, deserves to be enlarged on bail as the trial is
likely to take time to conclude.
4. Per contra, State counsel, upon instructions received from SI,
Birbal, has opposed the petition and has urged that in view of the rigor of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, petitioner cannot be released on bail. He has
filed Custody Certificate dated 04.12.2023, which is taken on record. As per
his instructions, charge has been framed on 29.05.2023, but out of 17
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
6. It has been held in Amar Singh's case (supra) that recovery
effected from the accused cannot be clubbed till the time it is not
established that there was some complicity or conspiracy between them.
This aspect will be a subject matter of debate before the Trial Court. When
considered individually, the recovery of prohibited substance effected from
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155246
2023:PHHC:155246
the petitioner falls within the ambit of intermediate quantity as per the
notification under the NDPS Act. Noticing the clean antecedents of the
petitioner, the length of custody of more than nine months and the nascent
stage of the trial, this Court has no hesitation in acceding to the prayer made
in the petition.
7. Without adverting to the merits or de-merits of the arguments
addressed, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on
furnishing bail/local solvent surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. It is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall not be
construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
05.12.2023
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:155246
3 of 3
