Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ajaib Singh vs State Of Haryana on 24 January, 2023
CRM-M-43937-2022 -1-
(223) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-43937-2022
Date of Decision: 24.01.2023
Ajaib Singh
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. L.S. Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, AAG, Haryana.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
This 2nd petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of
regular bail in case bearing FIR No.145 dated 26.09.2020 registered under
Sections 22-C and 29 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Jakhal, District
Fatehabad.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty near Village Nathuwal Stadium, two people were seen coming
on a motor cycle who tried to turn around the same. On being apprehended,
the persons sitting behind was seen carrying a white polythene bag in his
hand. The driver of the motor cycle disclosed his name as Ajaib Singh
(petitioner) whereas the person sitting pillion disclosed his name as Tek
Singh. The recovery of 260 strips of Tramadol Hydrochloride (2600 tablets)
came to be effected from them.
1 of 4
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is a
violation of Section 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act. No independent witness was
joined during the course of search and seizure. The conscious possession of
the petitioner over the alleged recovery would be a matter of adjudication
during Trial. Since the petitioner was in custody since 26.09.2020, none of
the 18 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and he was a first time
offender, he was entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The
State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment
and order dated 04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on
01.08.2022 and followed by this Court in the case of Balraj Singh Versus
State of Punjab, CRM-M-57386-2022, decided on 14.12.2022, having
undergone almost 02 years of custody.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that
commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner
and his co-accused. In view of the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, does not
dispute the period of custody undergone by the petitioner as also the fact that
the petitioner is a first-time offender.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on
01.08.2022 held as under:-
"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the
show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was
supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West
2 of 4
Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State
also. However, no one has entered appearance on their
behalf.
The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No.
612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and
37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon,
West Bengal.
During the course of the hearing, we are informed
that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01
year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a
preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined.
The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.
Taking into consideration the period of sentence
undergone by the petitioner and all the attending
circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits
of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released
on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the
aforestated terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of."
This Court in the case of Balraj Singh Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-57386-2022, decided on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and granted bail to the petitioner therein
after he had undergone total custody of 01 year and 06 months.
7. In the present case, the petitioner has been in custody since
26.09.2020 and as such has undergone 02 years and 04 months of actual
custody. None of the 18 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far
and he is a first time offender. In view of the custody period already
undergone by the petitioner, the provisions of Section 37 can be diluted to an
3 of 4
extent in view of the salutary provisions contained under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India which provides for the Right to a Speedy Trial.
Therefore, the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of
concession of bail.
8. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Ajaib Singh is ordered to be released on
bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of
learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
9. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on
the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in
writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the
cases mentioned in this order.
10. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare
an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court.
The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of
the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.
11. The petition stands disposed of.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
24.01.2023
sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
