Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramiya Purti vs State Of Punjab on 20 December, 2023
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164282
CRM-M-63184-2023(O&M) 1
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:164282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
229 CRM-M-63184-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 20.12.2023
Ramiya Purti
... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present :- Mr. Manpreet Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Singh, AAG, Punjab.
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
District Govt. Rly. Act (Section 27 of the
Police, Ludhiana NDPS Act was
added later on)
2. Version of the prosecution is that FIR, Annexure P-1, has
been registered when on suspicion, 04 adults were searched at Ludhiana
railway station and were found to be carrying 01 Kg. opium each. The
four individuals i.e. 02 males and 02 females identified themselves as
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164282
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:164282
Damodar Kumar Rana, Tiken Ganju @ Tiken Ganjhu, Chandu Devi and
Ramiya Purti (present petitioner).
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. Referring to order dated 05.12.2023 passed by this
Court, Annexure P-2, preferred by co-accused, counsel claims that
petitioner is similarly placed. 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 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 19.12.2023, 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164282
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:164282
This aspect will be a subject matter of debate before the Trial Court.
When considered individually, the recovery of prohibited substance
effected from 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 9½
months, order Annexure P-2 passed in the case of co-accused 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/surety bonds of a local solvent surety
to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be construed to
be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
20.12.2023 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
pooja saini JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164282
3 of 3
