Lakhwinder Singh Alias Sandhi vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 9158 P&H

                                                         Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082884




CRM-M-29498-2023                    2023:PHHC:082884
                                      - 1-

225
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                                   CRM-M-29498-2023
                                                   Date of decision: 03.07.2023

Lakhwinder Singh alias Sadhi alias Lakha Singh
                                                                           ....Petitioner
                                 Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                          ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
                                *****

Present : Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab.

***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the

grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.378 dated 27.12.2020,

registered under Section 22(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 (for short the 'Act'), at Police

Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last

2 years and 6 months. He has been falsely implicated in this case. The mandatory

provisions of Section 50 of the Act have not been complied with at the time of his

arrest. Though, the charges were framed way back on 12.10.2021, however, only 1

out of the 14 prosecution witnesses has been examined. The petitioner is not

involved in any other case under the Act.

3. The custody certificate dated 02.07.2023, has been filed by the

learned State counsel. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for the last

more than 2 months and 6 days.

                                     1 of 4

                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082884




CRM-M-29498-2023                    2023:PHHC:082884
                                      - 2-

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the

commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner. He is

however unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case and

the petitioner not being involved in any other case under NDPS Act.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla

vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No.6690/2022 decided on

25.01.2023 observed that in a case of long custody period, involving quantity

recovered to be of commercial nature, where the trial is yet to commence, though

charges had been framed, the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be

dispensed with. Similarly, in the case of Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. The State of

West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon'ble The

Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial

quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months

and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In the case

of Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, the

Division Bench of this Court observed with regard to achieving balance between

right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and

rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs.

State of Punjab CRM-M-57386-2022, decided on 14.12.2022 has followed the

dictum laid down by Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted bail to the petitioner

therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months. In the case

of Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, decided on

06.02.2023, this Court granted bail to a first offender from whom commercial

quantity of contraband had been recovered and only 2 out of 13 PWs have been

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082884

CRM-M-29498-2023 2023:PHHC:082884

- 3-

examined, by observing that in view of delayed trial, the rigors of Section 37 of

NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent and the petitioner can be granted bail,

keeping in mind the right to a speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India.

7. In view of the afore-referred judgments and facts and circumstances

of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 2 years and 6

months, not involved in any other case under NDPS Act, out of 14 prosecution

witnesses only 1 has yet been examined, the trial is likely to take a considerable

time and his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, thus the

present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.

8. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered

to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being

required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-

1.The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

2.The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

3.The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

4.The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

5.The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

6.The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

7.The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082884

CRM-M-29498-2023 2023:PHHC:082884

- 4-

Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

8.The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

9. The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

9. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the

aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as

granted to the petitioner by this order.

10. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein

are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as

an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of

the aforesaid observations.

                                                   (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
                                                        JUDGE
July 03, 2023
dharamvir


        Whether speaking/reasoned              :      Yes / No

        Whether reportable                     :      Yes / No




                                                          Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082884

                                      4 of 4