Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 July, 2023
PARVEEN KUMAR
2023.07.05 18:42
2023: PHHC:084579
-1-
CRM-M-51942-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-51942-2021
Date of decision: 05.07.2023
Amarjit Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
StateofPunjabo Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. J.S.Sandhu, Advocate and
Mr. Salil Dev Singh Bali, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurdarshan Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J. (QRAL)
1. Through this second petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail
in case FIR No.34 dated 12.04.2021, registered at Police Station Ghall
Khurd, District Ferozepur, under Section 22 NDPS Act, 1985.
2. Status report dated 05.07.2023 by way of affidavit of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ferozepur, District Ferozepur,
filed in the Court today, is taken on record. Copy of the same has been
supplied to the counsel opposite.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the
extent of intoxicating tablets allegedly recovered in the present case, falls
under the commercial quantity, yet the fact remains that the petitioner has
been in custody for a period of more than 02 years and that out of 10
prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far. He
further contends that there is no other case registered or pending against the
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
PARVEEN KUMAR
2023.07.05 18:42
2023: PHHC:084579
CRM-M-51942-2021
petitioner, under the NDPS Act. In support of his contentions, learned
counsel relies upon the orders dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.5530-2022, titled as
"Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. State of Gujarat, and dated
04.05.2023, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3221/2023, titled as 'Hasanujjaman & Ors Vs. The
State of West Bengal'.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the
grant of bail to the petitioner, submits that the recovery effected in the
present case, falls under the commercial quantity and that Section 37 of the
NDPS Act bars the grant of bail to the accused in case of commercial
quantity. He further submits that the material witnesses are yet to be
examined.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Though the recovery effected in the present case falls under
the commercial quantity, yet the fact remains that the petitioner has been in
custody for a period of more than 02 years and that as many as 8
prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In such circumstances, trial
of the case would take a long time to conclude. Furthermore, there is no
other case registered or pending against the petitioner, under the NDPS
Act.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hasanujjaman & Ors.(supra),
while granting the benefit of bail to the petitioners therein, has held as
under:
"2. The allegations are that when the police party
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
2023: PHHC:084579
CRM-M-51942-2021
intercepted the petitioners along with another person
riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession
of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl
bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115
bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from
the joint possession of the petitioners. They were arrested
on the spot and have been in custody for more than one
year and four months.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the record.
4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been
filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The
conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time,
regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to
conclude the same within one year from the date of
framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any
criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial
compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any
views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to
release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and
conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court. 6.
Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are
found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or
other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the
concession of bail granted to them today, and in such a
case, necessary consequences shall follow.
7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before
the Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent,
it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.
8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the
above terms.
9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also
PARVEEN KUMAR
2023.07.05 18:42
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
2023: PHHC:084579
-4.
CRM-M-51942-2021
stands disposed of."
8. In view of the above, this Court finds that no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Resultantly,
without commenting anything on the merits, lest it should prejudice the
case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
05.07.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
parveen kumar JUDGE
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
PARVEEN KUMAR
2023.07.05 18:42
| attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this order/judgment
