Sandeep Singh @ Kaku vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 9498 P&H

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085322




CRM-M-23807-2023 (O&M)                         -1-    2023:PHHC:085322


                          224
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM-M-23807-2023 (O&M)
                                               Date of Decision: 06.07.2023


Sandeep Singh @ Kaku
                                                                   ....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

State of Punjab

                                                               .....Respondent(s)


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI

Present:     Mr. D.S. Bhinder, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.

                          ****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR

No. 06 dated 04.02.2021, under Sections 22/29 of NDPS Act, registered at

Police Station GRP Bathinda.

2. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petitioner is in custody from 23.02.2021 which is almost 2 ½ years and

this is the second successive bail petition filed by the petitioner. The earlier

bail petition was dismissed on 08.09.2022 which is almost 10 months ago and

at that point of time, his custody was 1½ years. He submitted that after the

dismissal of the aforesaid bail petition of the petitioner, the other co-accused

namely Rabinder Singh has been granted regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court in CRM-M-17663-2022 vide Annexure P-5. He submitted that

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085322

CRM-M-23807-2023 (O&M) -2- 2023:PHHC:085322

charges in the present case were framed on 08.10.2021 which is more than 1 ½

years ago but only one witness has been examined till date and the remaining

prosecution witnesses are not deposing before the learned trial Court

consistently with the result that the petitioner had to face incarceration for

about 2 ½ years for no fault of him. He further submitted that the allleged

recovery from the other co-accused was 17000 tablets of Tramadol but no

recovery was effected from the petitioner and the aforesaid other co-accused

from whom recovery was effected has been admitted to bail and therefore, the

petitioner is at better footing as compared to the other co-accused, namely ,

Rabinder Singh who has been extended the benefit of regular bail by a Co-

ordinate Bench of this Court. He further submitted that the petitioner is having

clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case and therefore, he may

be considered for the grant of regular bail.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Verma, learned DAG, Punjab has

submitted that so far as the custody period of the petitioner is concerned, the

same is not in dispute and more than 1 ½ years have expired after the framing

of the charges only one witness has been examined. He further submitted on

instructions that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The petitioner has already faced incarceration for about 2 ½

years. As per Annexure P-5, the other co-accused namely Rabinder Singh from

whom there was alleged recovery of 17000 tablets of Tramadol has been

extended the benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of thsi Court. Despite the

charges being framed more than 1 ½ years back, only one witness has been

examined. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central

Bureau of Investigation and another [2022 (10) SCC 51] and also in Mohd.

                                    2 of 3

                                                              Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085322




CRM-M-23807-2023 (O&M)                             -3-      2023:PHHC:085322

Muslim @ Hussain Versus State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 AIR (SC) 1648] dealt

with this issue with regard to delay in trial and its effect on the rights of the

accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In view of the aforesaid

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain

(Supra), the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to the

petitioner in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India considering

the aforesaid long custody of the petitioner and also the fact that the other co-

accused from whom there was alleged recovery has been extended the

benefit of bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

6. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall

be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not

required in any other case.

7. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as

an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of

deciding the present petition only.

06.07.2023                            (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh                                         JUDGE
         Whether speaking                      :   Yes/No
         Whether reportable                    :   Yes/No




                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085322

                                      3 of 3