Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajay Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 18 January, 2023
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRM-M-50047-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-18.1.2023
Ajay Kumar ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Mikhail Kad, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab,
assisted by ASI Darshan Singh.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide
FIR No.10, dated 6.1.2020 at Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur,
under Sections 22/29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act and
Sections 192 and 207 of Motor Vehicle Act.
2. As per the case of prosecution, on 6.1.2020, the police received secret
information to the effect that Ajay Kumar (petitioner), Navneet Singh @ Baru
and Chindi indulge in sale of intoxicating tablets and that they were
proceeding in a car from Mohrawali towards Bigrwal road and were carrying
huge quantity of intoxicating tablets. Pursuant to receipt of said information,
the police swung into action and laid barricading and was able to intercept the
PANKAJ KAKKAR
2023.01.18 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
(2) CRM-M-50047-2022 (O&M)
vehicle bearing registration No. HR-22M-2218. Three persons were found
sitting in a car who disclosed their names as Ajay Kumar (petitioner),
Navneet Singh and Chindi. The search of the vehicle led to recovery of
20,000 tablets of 'Tramadol Hydrochloride', which falls in the category of
'commercial' quantity.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case and that there is non-compliance of Section 42
of NDPS Act inasmuch as it is a case of recovery of contraband pursuant to
receipt of secret information, which was never ever conveyed to superior
officer. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been behind bars
since the last more than 3 years and since the trial is proceeding at snail's
pace, the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that identically situated co-
accused namely Chindi @ Chindi Kaur and Navneet Singh have already been
granted bail by this Court vide common order dated 21.9.2022 passed in
CRM-M-15537-2020.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the
petitioner was caught red-handed alongwith co-accused and was found sitting
in the car from which 'commercial' quantity of contraband i.e. 20000 tablets
of 'tramadol hydrochloride' were recovered, his complicity is clearly evident.
Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner as on date
has been behind bars since the last more than 3 years. Learned State counsel
has also informed that the petitioner stands involved in one more case
registered under Excise Act and also in another case i.e. in FIR No.9 dated
6.1.2020, Police Station Sunam, under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and
PANKAJ KAKKAR
2023.01.18 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
(3) CRM-M-50047-2022 (O&M)
Psychotropic Substances Act, wherein he had been nominated as an accused
with the aid of Section 29 of NDPS Act. It has further been informed that as
on date none out of the cited 21 PWs has been examined.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
6. Since the petitioner seeks grant of bail mainly on account of long custody, 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 the
Decision accused had undergone
when granted bail by
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Criminal 07.02.2020 Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. 1 year and 7 months
Appeal No. the State of West Bengal
245/2020
Criminal 12.10.2020 Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of 2 years and 7 months
Appeal No. Himachal Pradesh
668/2020
Special Leave 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. 1 year and 7 months
to Appeal the State of West Bengal
(Crl.) No.
5769/2022
Special Leave 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. 1 year and 6 months
to Appeal the State of West Bengal
(Crl.) No.
4173 of 2022
Criminal 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna Patra @ 2 years 1 month and 17
Appeal No. Gopalrusma Vs. Union of days
1169 of 2022 India
Special Leave 22.08.2022 Mohammad Salman Hanif About 2 years
to Appeal Shaikh Vs. the State of
(Crl.) No. Gujarat
5530-2022
Criminal 22.11.2022 Karnail Singh Vs. The State 1 Year and 8 months
Appeal No. of Odisha
2027-2022
Special Leave 25.11.2022 Karim Adaldar Vs. The State 10 months
to Appeal of West Bengal
(Crl.) No.
8653-2022
PANKAJ KAKKAR
2023.01.18 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
(4) CRM-M-50047-2022 (O&M)
7. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case,
particularly long custody of the petitioner and that identically situated co-
accused namely Chindi @ Chindi Kaur and Navneet Singh have already been
granted bail by this Court vide common order dated 21.9.2022 passed in
CRM-M-15537-2020 and also that conclusion of trial is likely to consume
time inasmuch as not even a single PW out of the cited 21 PWs has been
examined so far, the petition merits acceptance and is hereby accepted.
8. The petition, as such, is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released
on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
9. It is, however, directed that in case the petitioner is found to be indulging in
similar offence again, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an
application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
18.1.2023 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
pankaj Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
PANKAJ KAKKAR
2023.01.18 16:41
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
