Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh @ Kala vs State Of Punjab on 7 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085496
2023:PHHC:085496
CRM-M-35818-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(207) CRM-M-35818-2022
Date of decision:- 07.07.2023
Jaswinder Singh @ Kala ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Arun Luthra, DAG, Punjab.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of
the petitioner and has filed his Power of Attorney 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 Sections
No. Station
0035 02.03.2021 STF, SAS 21 (c) of Narcotic Drugs and
Nagar Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short "the NDPS Act") (later on Section
29 of the NDPS Act was added)
3. FIR, Annexure P-1, has been registered when on the basis of
secret information, Ramesh Kumar, who was alleged to be indulging in the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085496
2023:PHHC:085496
sale of intoxicating substance, was apprehended and recovery of 280 grams
of heroin, a Samsung mobile and Rs.200/-, in cash, was effected from him.
4. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been
arraigned as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of the main
accused and no recovery has either been effected from him or at his behest.
Still further, he submits that at the time of registration of FIR, Annexure P-
1, petitioner was in custody in FIR No.19 dated 20.12.2020, registered for
offences under Sections 21, 22, 23-C, 24, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act at
Police Station SSOC, Amritsar. It is his specific case that petitioner has
been falsely implicated and his father-in-law had moved a representation,
Annexure P-2, apprehending false implication. Still further, he submits that
the petitioner, who is in custody since 11.03.2021, deserves to be enlarged
on bail as the trial is at an initial stage.
5. Opposing the petition, State counsel, upon instructions received
from SI, Anokh Singh, submits that as commercial quantity of contraband
has been recovered, the bail petition, preferred by the petitioner, is hit by
Section 37 of the NDPS Act. He submits that the petitioner does not enjoy
clean antecedents as another case under the NDPS Act is pending against
him. As per his instructions, charge was framed in June, 2022 and one
prosecution witness has been partly examined. He is not in a position to
deny that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner in the present
case.
6. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085496
2023:PHHC:085496
7. Petitioner is languishing in custody for the last more than twenty
seven months and the trial is at a nascent stage. Although, he is involved in
another criminal case under the NDPS Act, but in view of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in SLP (Crl) No.6690 of 2022 titled as Dheeraj Kumar
Shukla Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh, decided on 25.01.2023 as well
as Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1166 of 2023 titled as Chet Ram @
Ram Veer Versus Union of India, decided on 15.03.2023, this Court is of
the view that considering the length of custody and that no recovery has
been effected from him, petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
8. 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.
9. 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
07.07.2023
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:085496
3 of 3
