Jagsir Singh Alias Seera vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 9510 P&H

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084961




                                                            2023:PHHC:084961
CRM-M-20305-2021                           -1-


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

(211)                                                  CRM-M-20305-2021
                                                 Date of decision:- 06.07.2023

Jagsir Singh @ Seera                                  ... Petitioner
                                      Versus
State of Punjab                                       ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL


Present:- Mr. Jasvir Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

           Mr. Arun Luthra, DAG, Punjab for State-respondent.

                     ****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)

1. Mr. Jasvir Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate has put in appearance on

behalf of the petitioner and has filed his Vakalatnama with no objection

from the previous counsel, which is taken on record.

2. Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of post-arrest bail in:-

 FIR      Dated     Police Station                     Sections
 No.
13      16.01.2021 Sadar Mansa, 22, 25 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and

District Mansa Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short "the NDPS Act")

3. Version of the prosecution is that FIR, Annexure P-1, has been

registered when on the basis of suspicion, a motorcyclist was intercepted,

who identified himself as Balwinder Singh @ Bindri and recovery of 500

tablets of Tramadol was effected from him.

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084961

2023:PHHC:084961

4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not

named in the FIR and has been nominated as an accused on the basis of

disclosure statement of the main accused, who has been released on bail by

the learned Special Court, Mansa vide order dated 18.03.2021 as the total

weight of the intoxicating substance recovered from him fell within the

ambit of non-commercial quantity. Counsel submits that although recovery

of 1500 tablets of Tramadol, weighing 493.62 grams, has been effected

from the petitioner, but due to the tardy progress of the trial, petitioner is

languishing behind bars since 23.01.2021. Counsel asserts that the

petitioner, who has a clean past, deserves to be enlarged on bail. By making

a reference to interim order dated 29.05.2023, he submits that petitioner's

son unfortunately expired in May, 2023 and he was released on interim

bail. He submits that petitioner did not misuse the concession and duly

surrendered within the time granted by this Court.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel, upon instructions received

from SI, Jagsir Singh, has opposed the petition. He submits that as

commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner,

rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will be attracted. On the basis of the

Custody Certificate dated 05.07.2023, which has been filed by him, he

could not dispute that the petitioner enjoys clean antecedents. As per his

instructions, twelve out of twenty seven prosecution witnesses have been

examined.

6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their

respective submissions.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084961

2023:PHHC:084961

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case

(supra), has observed as under:-

"3. ......... It is true that the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence though the charges have been framed."

8. Petitioner has an unblemished past. He is in detention for the last

almost 2 ½ years and there is a little possibility of an early conclusion of

the trial. In view of these factors and the judgment of the Supreme Court,

this Court has no hesitation in acceding to the prayer made in the petition.

9. Without adverting to the merits or demerits of the arguments

addressed, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on

furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Area

Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.

10. It is clarified that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to

be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                     (SUVIR SEHGAL)
                                                          JUDGE
06.07.2023
Kamal
         Whether Speaking/Reasoned                  Yes/No
         Whether Reportable                         Yes/No




                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084961

                                3 of 3