Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurnam Singh vs State Of Punjab on 31 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15391-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 31.01.2023
Gurnam Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. S.S.Tiwana, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Swati Batra, DAG, Punjab.
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in
respect of a case registered against him vide FIR No.08 dated 09.03.2018 at
Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran, under Section 22 of the NDPS
Act (Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on).
2. It is the case of prosecution that while the police party was patrolling, they
saw one car coming from the direction of Narli and they signalled the car to
stop. It is alleged that one person who was sitting on the rear seat ran away
while the driver was apprehended who upon enquiry disclosed his name as
Gurnam Singh (petitioner). It is further the case of prosecution that upon
search of said Gurnam Singh and also from the search of the car Tramzam-
100-SR 61500 tablets, Subimol-T 5000 tablets, Parvorin Spas 13200
capsules, Alprozolam Kinlo-0.5 8800 tablets, Alprozolam-0.5 4800 tablets,
Teridol-50 2100 capsules, Oxytocin Injection I.P 2000, Dicnac Vials 216, 20
packets Microlit 2000 tablets were recovered.
1 of 3
(2) CRM-M-15391-2022 (O&M)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been
implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that the
petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 4 years
& 10 months and that since the trial is proceeding at snail's pace, the
petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that since the
petitioner was caught red handed at the spot and huge quantity of contraband
was recovered from the car being driven by him, he does not deserve the
concession of bail. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the
petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 4 years, 10 months & 24
days. Learned State counsel has also informed that the petitioner is not
involved in any other case. It has also been informed that as on date only 2
out of cited 13 PWs have been examined.
5. This Court has considered 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 No. Date of Title of case Period which the
Decision accused had
undergone when
granted bail by
Hon'ble Supreme
Court
Criminal Appeal 07.02.2020 Chitta Biswas @ Subhas 1 year & 7 months
No.245/2020 Vs. The State of West
Bengal
Criminal Appeal 12.10.2020 Amit Singh Moni Vs. State 2 years & 7 months
No.668/2020 of Himachal Pradesh
Special Leave to 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan 1 year & 7 months
Appeal (Criminal) Vs. The State of West
No.5769/2022 Bengal
Special Leave to 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. 1 year & 6 months
Appeal (Criminal) The State of West Bengal
No.4173/2022
Criminal Appeal 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna Patra @ 2 years, 1 month &
No.1169/2022 Gopalrusma Vs. Union of 17 days
India
2 of 3
(3) CRM-M-15391-2022 (O&M)
Special Leave to 22.08.2022 Mohammad Salman Hanif About 2 years
Appeal (Criminal) Shaikh Vs. The State of
No.5530/2022 Gujarat
Criminal Appeal 22.11.2022 Karnail Singh Vs. The 1 year & 8 months
No.2027-2022 State of Odisha
Special Leave to 25.11.2022 Karim Adaldar Vs. The 10 months
Appeal (Criminal) State of West Bengal
No.8653-2022
7. Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case
particularly the long custody of the petitioner and the fact that only 2 out of
cited 13 PWs have been examined till date, 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.
31.01.2023 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
Vimal JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
3 of 3
