Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh @ Jassu vs State Of Punjab on 6 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085054
CRM-M-43290-2022 -1-
Neutral Citation:2023:PHHC:084560
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
224
CRM-M-43290-2022
Date of decision: 06.07.2023
Jaswinder Singh @ Jassu
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. P. S. Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. H. S. Sullar, Sr. DAG, 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. 103 dated 22.09.2021,
registered under Sections 15 and 29 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Smalsar,
District Moga.
2. Learned counsel contends that petitioner has been in custody for the
last more than 1 year 9 months. He was the cleaner of the truck from which the
alleged recovery is stated to have been effected. The owner-cum-driver of the
truck namely Roop Singh who was also apprehended alongwith the petitioner has
since been granted regular bail vide order dated 24.04.2023. The provision of
Section 50 of the NDPS Act has not been complied with. He is a poor person and
has been falsely implicated in the present case. Though, charges were framed on
28.04.2022, however, none out of 14 Pws have been examined. The petitioner is
involved in one more case involving non-commercial quantity of contraband in
which he is on bail. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment passed by
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085054
Neutral Citation:2023:PHHC:084560
Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 05.07.2023, filed by the learned State
counsel is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for the last 1
year 9 months 11 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the truck of which he was
the cleaner and he is involved in one more case though involving non-commercial
quantity. However, he is unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage
of the case, co-accused having been granted bail and the petitioner being granted
bail in the other case.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the
basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as
possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court, etc."
7. 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 versus The
State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon'ble
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085054
Neutral Citation:2023:PHHC:084560
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 the
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 06.2.2023, this Court granted bail to the petitioner 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.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that
the petitioner has been in custody for the last 1 year 9 months 11 days; co-accused
has been granted bail; charges have been framed but out of 14 Pws, none have
been examined; the trial is likely to take considerable time, thus, his further
incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, thus the present petition for
grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
9. 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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085054
Neutral Citation:2023:PHHC:084560
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
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.
10. It is made clear that in case of any infraction of the aforesaid
conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to
the petitioner by this order.
11. 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)
06.07.2023 JUDGE
Mehak
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085054
4 of 4
