Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumit @ Somit vs State Of Haryana on 19 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) CRM-M-33623-2022 (O&M)
Sumit @ Somit ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
(2) CRM-M-3005-2022 (O&M)
Sandeep Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
Date of Decision:- 19.1.2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Ashok K. Sharma Bhana, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-33623-2022.
Mr. S.K.Garg Narwana, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Vishal Garg Narwana, Mr. Rajat Sheokand, Mr. Nitin Sachdeva,
Mr. Mukul Ahuja, Mr. Vasu Ranjan and Mr. Eashan Bhardwaj,
Advocates for the petitioner in CRM-M-3005-2022.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh AAG, Haryana,
assisted by SI Hari Kishan.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. This order shall dispose off the above mentioned two petitions filed on
behalf of Sumit @ Somit and Sandeep Kumar seeking grant of regular bail
in a case registered against them vide FIR No. 209 dated 8.9.2021 under
Section 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(Sections 61, 85 of the NDPS added later on) at Police Station Garhi,
District Jind.
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.01.19 14:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
2 CRM-M-33623-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-3005-2022 (O&M)
2. The FIR was lodged pursuant to receipt of secret information by ASI
Ravinder Singh on 8.9.2021 while he alongwith police party was present at
Garhi Bus Stand, to the effect that Sumit indulges in sale of intoxicating
tablets and that even on the given day he was present at T-point Dhanarui in
village Data Singh Wala while in possession of a large quantity of
intoxicating tablets.
3. It is the case of prosecution that pursuant to receipt of said information, a
notice in terms of Section 42 of the NDPS Act was conveyed to the police
station and the police party proceeded to the nominated place in village Data
Singh Wala where a young person was seen standing while carrying a black
coloured polythene bag. The said person, upon noticing the police party,
started walking briskly towards village Dhanauri but was nabbed by the
police. Upon enquiry, he disclosed his name as Sumit. The search of the
bag carried by him led to recovery of 20 strips of 'Tramadol' with each strip
having 50 tablets i.e. a total of 1000 tablets of 'Tramadol'. 50 tablets were
taken from one strip and were weighed and the weight of said 50 tablets was
found to be 19.89 grams. Thus, it is alleged that a total of 397.8 grams of
'Tramadol' was recovered from Sumit.
4. It is further the case of prosecution that during the course of interrogation,
said Sumit disclosed that he had procured the said tablets from Sandeep
Kumar. Said Sandeep Kumar was also arrested by the police on 10.9.2021
and from whose possession 100 strips (each strip containing 10 tablets) of
'Tramadol' was recovered. The total weight of the recovered tablets was
found to be 600 grams.
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.01.19 14:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
3 CRM-M-33623-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-3005-2022 (O&M)
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners
have falsely been implicated in the present case and as of now have been
behind bars since the last about 1 year and 4 months and otherwise enjoy a
clean record. The learned counsel has further submitted that since the trial
has not even commenced till date inasmuch as a supplementary challan
against another co-accused is yet to be filed, further detention of the
petitioners would not be justified. The learned counsel has pressed into
service a judgment delivered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-
M-9317-2022 - Chunni Ram @ Sandeep Vs. State of Haryana wherein an
accused has been granted bail solely on account of custody of 1 years and 2
months.
6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
petitions and has submitted that since the petitioner-Sumit was caught red
handed at the spot while in possession of a 'commercial quantity' of
contraband and that pursuant to a disclosure statement made by him, even
petitioner-Sandeep Kumar was found in possession of 600 grams of
'Tramadol' which also falls in the category of 'commercial quantity', no
case for grant of bail is made out. The learned State counsel has submitted
that the judgment relied upon by the petitioners i.e. Chunni Ram's case
which was delivered on 22.11.2022 would not be of much advantage to the
petitioners, given the fact that the latest position as settled by Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Narcotics Control Bureau vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022(3)
RCR(Criminal) 985 has not been taken into account. The learned State
counsel has pressed into service a judgment dated 24 th November, 2022
rendered in CRM-M-19038-2022 Sagar Vs. State of Haryana wherein this
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.01.19 14:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
4 CRM-M-33623-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-3005-2022 (O&M)
Court while relying upon the judgment rendered in Mohit Aggarwal's case
and some other cases has dismissed the petition despite the fact that the
petitioner had been behind bars since the last about 1 year and 4 months.
7. This Court has considered the rival submissions.
8. Having regard to the fact that it is a case of recovery of 'commercial
quantity' of contraband, the fetters imposed by Section 37 of the NDPS Act
will come into play in the matter of grant of bail.
9. At this stage, there is nothing to doubt the case of prosecution. Hon'ble
Apex Court in a judgment i.e. 2020(1) RCR(Criminal) 818 State of Kerala
vs. Rajesh Kumar has reiterated the legal position as regards the limitations
imposed by Section 37 of the Act and has further held that a liberal approach
in matters of bail in offences under the NDPS Act is uncalled for.
10.Hon'ble Supreme Court in a very recent judgment Narcotics Control Bureau
vs. Mohit Aggarwal, 2022(3) RCR(Criminal) 985, while deciding an appeal
filed by Narcotics Control Bureau challenging grant of bail to an accused by
the High Court, cancelled the bail while reiterating the view that provisions
of Section 37 of the Act have to be strictly complied with and that mere
length of custody cannot be a consideration for grant of bail. Paras 14 and
18 of the said judgment read as follows :-
"14. To sum up, the expression "reasonable grounds" used in clause (b) of Sub-Section
(1) of Section 37 would mean credible, plausible and grounds for the Court to
believe that the accused person is not guilty of the alleged offence. For arriving at
any such conclusion, such facts and circumstances must exist in a case that can
persuade the Court to believe that the accused person would not have committed
such an offence. Dove-tailed with the aforesaid satisfaction is an additional
consideration that the accused person is unlikely to commit any offence while on
bail.
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.01.19 14:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
5 CRM-M-33623-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-3005-2022 (O&M)
15. xxx xxx xxx
16. xxx xxx xxx
17. xxx xxx xxx
18. In our opinion the narrow parameters of bail available under Section 37 of the
Act, have not been satisfied in the facts of the instant case. At this stage, it is not
safe to conclude that the respondent has successfully demonstrated that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that he is not guilty of the offence alleged against
him, for him to have been admitted to bail. The length of the period of his custody
or the fact that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial has commenced are by
themselves not considerations that can be treated as persuasive grounds for
granting relief to the respondent under Section 37 of the NDPS Act."
11. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioners have been falsely
implicated or that in case released on bail, they will not commit identical
offences again. As such, having regard to fetters imposed by Section 37 of
the NDPS Act and also the ratio of judgments cited above, no case for grant
of regular bail is made out.
12. The petitions are sans merit and are hereby dismissed.
13. Since the learned State counsel has informed that supplementary challan
against co-accused Manjeet Singh is ready and shall be presented before the
trial Court on the next date of hearing, it be ensured that the same is done
accordingly. Upon presentation of supplementary challan, the trial Court
shall consider the question of framing of charges expeditiously by fixing a
short date. In case, the trial Court is of the opinion that the accused are
required to be tried then the trial Court may make a schedule in advance for
summoning the PWs and fix short dates for the witnesses to be summoned.
Special messengers be deputed for securing presence of the witnesses. If
deemed necessary, a request be also be made to Senior Superintendent of
Police concerned for ensuring that the presence of all the PWs is secured for
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.01.19 14:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
6 CRM-M-33623-2022 (O&M)
CRM-M-3005-2022 (O&M)
the dates as may be fixed by the Trial Court. The prosecution is also
directed to ensure the presence of all the PWs before the trial Court on the
dates as may be fixed by the trial Court for recording prosecution evidence.
The District Attorney concerned to take necessary steps for the purpose of
securing the presence of the remaining PWs.
14. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.
19.1.2023 (Gurvinder Singh Gill)
kamal Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.01.19 14:25
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
