Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 17 May, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:071696
2023:PHHC:071696
CRM-M-24202-2023 -1-
223 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-24202-2023
Date of Decision: 17.05.2023
GURPREET SINGH
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Prabhdeep Singh Toor, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
This 2nd petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of
regular bail in case bearing FIR No.99 dated 15.05.2021 (Annexure P-1)
registered under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station
City-2 Khanna, District Khanna.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a barricade had been put up in
front of Pristine Mall, Khanna, Delhi-Ludhiana Highway. At that time, from
the side of Gobindgarh, one Swift car bearing No.PB-10-BN-3131 in which
three young men were travelling was stopped. The driver disclosed his name
as Rajdeep Singh (granted bail vide order dated 17.05.2023 passed in CRM-
M-23627-2023) son of Karamjit Singh, the person sitting on the front
disclosed his name as Shiv Kumar @ Monu son of Ashok Kumar and the
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:071696
2023:PHHC:071696
person sitting on the back seat disclosed his name as Gurpreet Singh
(petitioner) son of Swaran Singh. Two heavy weight coloured plastic bags
were seen on the back seat of the car. The plastic bags were searched and
found to contain 500 bottles of Siorex Syrup leading to the registration of the
present FIR.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in fact, 500
bottles of Siorex Syrup were ordered to be supplied by M/s Gupta Enterprises
to M/s Himalaya Drug Medicos, Baddi, Himachal Pradesh. Both the seller as
well as the purchaser had valid licences for the sale and purchase of the
contraband. As the bill in question had been authenticated, the further custody
of the petitioner was not required as it would be a matter of adjudication
during trial as to whether an offence was made out or not. Even otherwise, the
petitioner was a mere transporter at best. In addition, he contends that as the
petitioner was a first-time offender and had undergone 02 years custody, he
was entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of
West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order
dated 04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and
followed by this Court in the case of Balraj Singh Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-57386-2022, decided on 14.12.2022.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the
bill in question has been found to be fictitious during collateral proceedings
arising out of an anticipatory bail petition filed by a co-accused. He, however,
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:071696
2023:PHHC:071696
concedes the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 02 years, is a first-time
offender and none of the 14 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on
01.08.2022 held as under:-
"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the
show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was
supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West
Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State
also. However, no one has entered appearance on their
behalf.
The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No.
612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and
37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon,
West Bengal.
During the course of the hearing, we are informed
that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01
year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a
preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined.
The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.
Taking into consideration the period of sentence
undergone by the petitioner and all the attending
circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits
of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released
on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the
aforestated terms.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:071696
2023:PHHC:071696
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of."
This Court in the case of Balraj Singh Versus State of Punjab,
CRM-M-57386-2022, decided on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and granted bail to the petitioner therein
after he had undergone total custody of 01 year and 06 months.
7. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody from
the last 02 years. None of the 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined
so far. The petitioner is also a first-time offender with no other case registered
against him under the NDPS Act. In such a situation, the rigors of Section 37
of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a
speedy trial and the petitioner can be granted the concession of bail, moreso,
when his co-accused Rajdeep Singh has been granted the similar concession.
8. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Gurpreet Singh son of Swaran Singh is
ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety
bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
9. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on
the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in
writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the
present case.
10. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare
an FDR in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:071696
2023:PHHC:071696
The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of
the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.
11. The petition stands disposed of.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
17.05.2023
JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:071696
5 of 5
