Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Niwas vs State Of Haryana on 3 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083037
CRM-M-27913-2023 2023:PHHC:083037
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
215
CRM-M-27913-2023
Date of decision : 03.07.2023
Ram Niwas .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Amit Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.Dhruv Sihag, AAG, Haryana
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.774 dated
24.12.2021, registered under Section 20/61/85 of the NDPS Act, at Police
Station Narnaund, District Hisar.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for
the last 1 year and 6 months. He has been falsely implicated in the present
case as the alleged recovery of 1 kg and 466 grams of Sulpha (Cannabis)
has been foisted on him. Similarly placed co-accused-Ram from whom 1 kg
and 008 grams of Sulpha (Cannabis) was recovered, has already been
enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.02.2023, Annexure P-2
having custody of 1 year and 2 months. The mandatory provision of Section
50 of the NDPS Act was not complied with, while effecting the recovery of
the contraband. He further submits that out of 13 PWs, only 2 have been
examined as yet. The petitioner is not involved in any other case.
3. The custody certificate dated 02.07.2023 has been filed by
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083037
CRM-M-27913-2023 2023:PHHC:083037
learned State counsel, which is taken on record. As per the same, the
petitioner is behind bars since 25.12.2021.
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 the stage of
the case, the period of custody and he being not involved in any other case.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India 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 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 of
India 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 of India and granted the bail to the petitioner
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083037
CRM-M-27913-2023 2023:PHHC:083037
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 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 Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Keeping in view the afore-referred judgments and the facts and
circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for
the last more than 1 year and 6 months; not involved in any other case; co-
accused-Ram has already been released on bail; there are total 13 PWs, out
of which only 2 have been examined, the trial is likely to take a
considerable time, 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 on 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083037
CRM-M-27913-2023 2023:PHHC:083037
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 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 any opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would
proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
03.07.2023 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
gsv JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083037
4 of 4
