Punjab-Haryana High Court
Naman vs State Of Punjab on 4 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083543
240
2023:PHHC:083543
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.22707 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 04.07.2023
Naman
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. Charanpreet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Teevar Sharma, AAG, Punjab.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN J. (Oral)
Prayer in this 3rd petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.147 dated 13.08.2018, registered under
Section 22 of the NDPS Act at Police Station City Phagwara, District
Kapurthala.
The earlier one was dismissed as withdrawn.
The new ground for filing this petition is that as on today,
the custody of the petitioner is about 04 years and out of 12 PWs, only
03 PWs have been examined.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the
allegations in the FIR, registered on 13.08.2018, ASI Onkar Singh
while on duty, received a telephone call from one Constable that one
Ishi @ Ajay and the petitioner Naman were apprehended with
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083543
2023:PHHC:083543
intoxicant injections and on receiving the information, the FIR was
registered.
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that later
on, ASI Onkar Singh was deputed for the investigation and on reaching
the spot, when the petitioner and the co-accused were produced before
him, the petitioner was found allegedly having a kit bag and ASI Onkar
Singh, searched the said kit bag, from which 60 intoxicant injections
were recovered.
Counsel for the petitioner has also argued that it will be a
matter of trial, whether Section 50 of the NDPS Act was complied with
or not as the personal search was conducted and even from the bag
from which the recovery was effected, which as per the prosecution
version, the petitioner was carrying in his hand.
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that
despite long custody of the petitioner of about 04 years, the trial is not
proceeding and only 03 PWs have been examined out of 12 PWs.
Counsel for the State, however, as per the Custody
Certificate could not dispute the actual custody and submitted that the
petitioner stands convicted in one case for a period of 10 years vide
judgment dated 20.07.2021 where he is already undergoing the
sentence.
However, no reasonable explanation has been given as to
why the trial is being delay for a period of about 04 years as only 03
PWs have been examined.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083543
2023:PHHC:083543
Without commenting anything on merits of the case,
considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 04
years; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and in
view of the legal plea taken by the petitioner with regard to non-
compliance of Section 50 of the NDPS Act, which is to be decided at
the time of final disposal of the case and the fact that the conclusion of
the trial will take some time, this petition is allowed and the petitioner
is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate.
However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for
cancellation of bail of the petitioner, in case he is found involved in any
other case or misusing the concession of bail, in any manner.
(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
04.07.2023
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:083543
3 of 3
