Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Kant vs Ut Chandigarh on 11 January, 2023
CRM-M-50026-2022 -1-
(220) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-50026-2022
Date of Decision: 11.01.2023
RAVI KANT
... Petitioner
Versus
U.T. CHANDIGARH
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. G.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. A.M. Punchhi, P.P. U.T., Chandigarh.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The petitioner seeks the grant of regular bail under Section 439
Cr.P.C. in case bearing FIR No.30 dated 25.03.2022 registered under Section
20 NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Sector-11, Chandigarh.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty for prevention of crime of theft and snatching and was present
near Sector-11, Market and patrolling on foot, then at about 06.50 PM, when
the SI reached near the under bridge, he saw one person coming from inside
the under bridge holding a bag on his shoulders. On seeing the police party,
he got perplexed and tried to walk away fast. He was apprehended on
suspicion and disclosed his name as Ravi Kant (petitioner). On search the
recovery of 1 kg 25 grams Charas was effected from him.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with. There is a violation
1 of 4
of Section 42 of the NDPS Act as well. The recovery from the petitioner is of
01 kg 25 grams of Charas including the weight of the polythene bag and
therefore as the recovery was of contraband marginally above the commercial
quantity which was 01 kg charas, the petitioner was entitled to the grant of
bail, moreso, when he was a first-time offender with no other case registered
against him. He places reliance on the judgments in the case of Shankar
Prashad Chanau Versus The State of Punjab, CRM-M-24090-2020, decided
on 27.08.2020, Gurpreet Kumar Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-17021-
2021, decided on 31.08.2021, Hari Yadav @ Hariya Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-37645-2021, decided on 11.02.2022, Jang Kanwar Versus State of
Punjab, CRM-M-53415-2021, decided on 19.01.2022, Sukhchain Singh @
Manga Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-7857-2022, decided on 04.04.2022,
Salim Versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-42436-2020, decided on
24.02.2021, Gagandeep Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-3055-2021,
decided on 27.01.2021 and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-41039-2019, decided on 26.02.2020.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that
commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner
and as such, he was not entitled to the grant of bail in view of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act. He, however, does not deny the fact that the petitioner is a
first-time offender and the recovery is marginally above the commercial
quantity.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length.
2 of 4
6. In case of Shankar Prashad Chanau (supra) wherein the
recovery was of 1 kg 100 grams of charas, the petitioner therein was granted
the concession of bail.
Similarly, in the case of Gurpreet Kumar Versus State of
Punjab, CRM-M-17021-2021, decided on 31.08.2021, Hari Yadav @ Hariya
Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-37645-2021, decided on 11.02.2022, Jang
Kanwar Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-53415-2021, decided on
19.01.2022, Sukhchain Singh @ Manga Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-
7857-2022, decided on 04.04.2022, Salim Versus State of Haryana, CRM-
M-42436-2020, decided on 24.02.2021, Gagandeep Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-3055-2021, decided on 27.01.2021 and Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi
Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-41039-2019, decided on 26.02.2020, where
the recovery was of contraband marginally above the commercial quantity
bail was granted to the petitioners therein.
7. Since the recovery from the petitioner is of 1 kg 25 grams of
charas which is marginally above the commercial quantity of 1 kg, none of
the 16 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and the petitioner is a
first-time offender, the further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.
8. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Ravi Kant 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
3 of 4
writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the
present case.
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
11.01.2023
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
4 of 4
