Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shiv Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 23 January, 2023
-1-
CRM-M-12491 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12491 of 2022
Date of decision: 23.01.2023
Shiv Kumar
...........Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Arjunveer Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Virat Rana, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J. (ORAL)
In compliance of order dated 24.11.2022, status report by way
of affidavit of Jagdish Raj, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division
Phillaur, District Jalandhar (Rural) has been filed on behalf of the
respondent-State, which is taken on record.
This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.173 dated 19.08.2019 under
Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
registered at Police Station Goraya, Jalandhar.
According to the prosecution, on 19.08.2019, recovery of 7000
loose intoxicating capsules containing 4438 grams of psychotropic
substance, namely, Dextropropoxyphene Hydrochloride was effected from
the petitioner without any permit or licence.
1 of 4
CRM-M-12491 of 2022
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Petitioner is in
custody since 19.08.2019. Learned counsel further submits that
investigation in the present case is complete; challan has been presented;
charges have been framed and out of total 10 prosecution witnesses only
one witness has been examined and the case is now fixed before the trial
Court on 27.01.2023. He further submits that petitioner is not involved in
any other case under the NDPS Act. Trial may take a considerable time to
conclude. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the
petitioner behind bars.
Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner. However, he could not refute that out
of total 10 prosecution witnesses only one witness has been examined till
date; petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years 05 months and 05 days and
the trial may take a considerable time to conclude. Referring to para 8 of
the status report, learned State counsel submits that in case FIR No.373
dated 26.12.2012 under Section 61(1)(14) of the Excise Act registered at
Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar, petitioner was convicted by the trial Court
vide judgment dated 11.07.2013.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
In view of the custody period undergone by the petitioner, 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 :-
2 of 4
CRM-M-12491 of 2022
Case Number Date of Decision Title of case Period which 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 months
State 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 More than 2 years
Appeal (Crl.) Vs. The State of
No.5187 of 2021 Punjab
Special Leave to 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary 1 year and 7
Appeal (Crl.) @ Bapan Vs. the months
No.5769/2022 State of West
Bengal
Special Leave to 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ 1 year and 6
Appeal (Crl.) Sarif Vs. the State months
No.4173 of 2022 of West Bengal
Criminal Appeal 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna 2 years 1 month
No.1169 of 2022 Patra @ and 17 days
Gopalrusma Vs.
Union of India
Special Leave to 22.08.2022 Mohammad About 2 years
Appeal (Crl.) Salman Hanif
No.5530-2022 Shaikh Vs. the
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
Keeping in view the custody of the petitioner, which is 03 years
05 months and 05 days; investigation is complete; challan has been
presented; charges have been framed and out of 10 prosecution witnesses,
only one prosecution witnesses has been examined and trial is likely to take
a considerable time, however, without commenting upon the merits of the
case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on
3 of 4
CRM-M-12491 of 2022
his 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 petitioner shall
remain bound by the following conditions: -
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence oral or
documentary during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to
the one alleged in the present case.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any with the
trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the
police authorities and shall not change his cell-phone
number without permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the
trial.
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 cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
The petition stands disposed off accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
23.01.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
