Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 4 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083658
CRM-M-58570-2022 2023:PHHC:083658
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
215
CRM-M-58570-2022
Date of decision : 04.07.2023
Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr.HS Sullar, Sr.DAG, Punjab
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.203 dated
29.12.2021, registered under Section 22(c), 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, (for
short 'the Act') at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for
the last 1 year and 6 months. He was apprehended with 3500 intoxicant
tablets but the mandatory provisions of the Act have not been complied with
while effecting the recovery. He further submits that the charges were
framed on 30.08.2022 but till date, out of 15 prosecution witnesses, none
has been examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case.
3. The custody certificate has been filed by learned State counsel,
which is taken on record, as per which, the petitioner is behind bars since
31.12.2021.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083658
CRM-M-58570-2022 2023:PHHC:083658
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 the petitioner being not involved in any other
case.
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 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 grantedbail 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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083658
CRM-M-58570-2022 2023:PHHC:083658
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;
charges were framed wayback on 30.08.2022 but out of 15 PWs, none has
been examined as yet, 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
specific order of Court.
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar
to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for
r
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083658
CRM-M-58570-2022 2023:PHHC:083658
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.
04.07.2023 (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
gsv JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083658
4 of 4
