Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohd Haleem vs State Of Punjab on 20 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163898
2023:PHHC:163898
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203
(i) CRM-M-2394-2023
Date of decision: 20.12.2023
Mohd. Haleem ........Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
(ii) CRM-M-13181-2023
Date of decision: 20.12.2023
Jaggi ........Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-2394-2023.
Mr. I.S. Kooner, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-13181-2023.
Mr. Rozer Kumar Aggarwal, A.A.G, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
1. This order will dispose of the above mentioned both the
petitions as the same have arisen out of the common FIR.
2. The petitioners have filed the instant petitions under
Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.146
dated 31.12.2021 under Sections 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station City-2,
Malerkotla.
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 31.12.2021, the police
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163898
2023:PHHC:163898
CRM-M-13181-2023
party headed by ASI Harjit Singh was doing patrolling duty and going
from Manna Phatak, Malerkotla to Village Maana. When they reached
about half kilometer ahead to Maana Phatak, they saw two persons
searching something in a transparent polythene and on seeing the police
party, they tried to fled from the spot after throwing the polythene. The
said polythene fell down and the intoxicant tablets were scattered on
the ground. Thereafter, the police apprehended both the persons who
disclosed their name as Jaggi Singh and Mohd. Haleem (the
petitioners). On search, 3150 tablets make Alprazolam Tablets IP 0.5
mg, 350 tablets make Tramadol HCI SP-100 SR, 300 tablets make
Tramadol Hydrochloride Dicylomine Hydrochloride & Acetaminophen
Capsules Spas-Trancan Plus (total 3800 tablets) were recovered from
them.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the
petitioners are innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present
case. The allegations in the FIR are improbable because both the
petitioners are said to have intoxicant tablets in a transparent polythene
which is totally unbelievable as no one can keep such tablets in
transparent polythene. The petitioners have nothing to do with the
alleged recovery. Mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not
complied with by the police during the search. They submit that the
petitioners are in custody since 31.12.2021. They referred to a latest
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal
No.943 of 2023 titled as "Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT
of Delhi)" decided on 28.03.2023 to contend that when there is a long
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163898
2023:PHHC:163898
CRM-M-13181-2023
delay in the trial and especially when it is not the fault of the accused
and in that situation even the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will
be diluted in the given facts and circumstances of each and every case.
They further submit that investigation in the present case is complete;
challan has been presented on 18.06.2022; charges have been framed
on 06.07.2022. Out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been
examined so far and 08 have been given up. They further submits that
trial may take a considerable time to conclude, therefore, no fruitful
purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners behind bars.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for
grant of regular bail to the petitioners on the ground that recovery of
3800 intoxicant tablets and capsules has been effected from the
petitioners which is commercial quantity. He further submits that
petitioner-Mohd. Haleem is not involved in any other case whereas
petitioner-Jaggi is involved in 01 other case under the NDPS Act,
although he is on bail in the said case. He, however, submits that
petitioners are in custody for the last more than 01 year and 11 months;
investigation in the present case is complete; challan has been
presented; charges have been framed and out of total 15 prosecution
witnesses, only 01 has been examined so far and 08 have been given
up.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner-Jaggi submits that in other
case pending against petitioner-Jaggi, he is on bail. Relying upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi
Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 learned counsel for
petitioner-Jaggi contends that the facts and circumstances of the present
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163898
2023:PHHC:163898
CRM-M-13181-2023
case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail
application of the petitioner-Jaggi cannot be rejected solely on the
ground that he is involved in other case under the NDPS Act. The
relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"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. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. In view of the custody period undergone by the petitioners,
it is apposite to refer to a few judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
this regard wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the concession
of bail solely on ground of long custody :-
Case Number Date of Title of case Period which
Decision the accused
had undergone
when granted
bail by Hon'ble
Supreme Court
Criminal Appeal 07.02.2020 Chitta Biswas @ 1 year and 7
No.245/2020 Subhas Vs. the State months
of West Bengal
Criminal Appeal 12.10.2020 Amit Singh Moni 2 years and 7
No.668/2020 Vs. State of months
Himachal Pradesh
Special Leave to 10.11.2021 Kulwant Singh Vs. More than 2
Appeal (Crl.) The State of Punjab years
No.5187of 2021
Special Leave to 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary @ 1 year and 7
Appeal (Crl.) Bapan Vs. the State months
No.5769/2022 of West Bengal
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163898
2023:PHHC:163898
CRM-M-13181-2023
Special Leave to 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ 1 year and 6
Appeal (Crl.) Sarif Vs. the State of months
No.4173 of 2022 West Bengal
Criminal Appeal 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna Patra 2 years 1 month
No.1169 of 2022 @ Gopalrusma Vs. and 17 days
Union of India
Special Leave to 22.08.2022 Mohammad Salman About 2 years
Appeal (Crl.) Hanif Shaikh Vs. the
No.5530-2022 State of Gurjarat
Special Leave to 31.10.2022 Shahjad Vs. The About 2 years
Appeal (Crl.) State of Uttar
No.7840 of 2022 Pradesh
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal
(Crl.) No.4169 of 2023 - Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha decided
on 13.07.2023 has held that in case of prolonged incarceration,
conditional liberty will override the statutory embargo under Section 37
of the NDPS Act as the prolonged incarceration is against fundamental
right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
10. Keeping in view the custody of the petitioners, which is 01
year, 11 months and 20 days; investigation is complete; challan has
been presented; charges have been framed and out of total 15
prosecution witnesses, only 01 has been examined so far and 08 have
been given up and trial is likely to take a considerable time, however,
without commenting upon the merits of the case, both the petitioner are
ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on their furnishing
bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial
Court. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the
trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, the petitioners shall remain
bound by the following conditions: -
(i) The petitioners shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163898
2023:PHHC:163898
CRM-M-13181-2023
(ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with any evidence
oral or documentary during the trial.
(iii) The petitioners shall not absent themselves on any
date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence similar
to the one alleged in the present case.
(v) The petitioners shall deposit their passports, if any
with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioners shall give their cellphone numbers
to the police authorities and shall not change their
cell-phone number without permission of the trial
Court.
(vii) The petitioners shall not in any manner try to delay
the trial.
11. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and
those which may be imposed by the trial Court, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail of the
petitioners.
12. The petitions stands disposed of accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
20.12.2023 JUDGE
kothiyal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:163898
6 of 6
