Parkash Singh vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 21617 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Parkash Singh vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2023

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159087




                                                         2023:PHHC:159087

CRM-M-60151-2022                                                                -1-

220    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                                       CRM-M-60151-2022
                                             Date of Decision : December 12, 2023

Parkash Singh
                                                                       .....Petitioner
                                            Vs.
State of Punjab
                                                                       ...Respondent


CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:     Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Ms. Ramta K. Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.


JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)

The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.PC for

the grant of regular bail, in case FIR No.160 dated 22.08.2019 under

Sections 22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Dirba,

District Sangrur.

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

patrolling duty, two persons were seen coming on a motorcycle, who on

seeing the police party became perplexed and tried to turn back. A black

colour bag fell down from the motorcycle. The persons were apprehended

and they disclosed their names as Mahinder Ram and Parkash Singh-

petitioner. The recovery of 720 tablets make Clovidol 100-SR and

180 intoxicating tablets labelled as Alprasafe 0.5 were recovered from the

accused.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159087

2023:PHHC:159087

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 for

the last 01 year, 07 months and 25 days and only 04 out of the 16

prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, 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, 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 for the last 01 year, 07

months and 25 days and only 04 out of 16 prosecution witnesses had been

examined.

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

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159087

2023:PHHC:159087

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.

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159087

2023:PHHC:159087

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; charge-sheet 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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159087

2023:PHHC:159087

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 for

the last 01 year, 07 months and 25 days and only 04 out of 16 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

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159087

2023:PHHC:159087

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.

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

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Parkash Singh son of Gurnam Singh

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.

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.

12. The petition stands disposed of.

                                                   ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
December 12, 2023                                         JUDGE
satish



                    Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
                    Whether reportable        : YES / NO

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:159087

6 of 6