Punjab-Haryana High Court

Prince Chopra vs State Of Punjab on 15 November, 2023

                                                     Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144927




                                                              2023:PHHC:144927


CRM-M-55895-2023 (O & M)                                                           ::1::-


     (227) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH


                                                 CRM-M-55895-2023 (O & M)
                                                 Date of Decision: 15.11.2023

Prince Chopra

                                                                         ... Petitioner

                                        Versus
State of Punjab
                                                                        ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr. Manmeet Singh, Advocate,
            For Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG, Punjab.

                   ****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in this third petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for

the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.241 dated 12.12.2021

registered under Sections 21-B/22-C/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at

Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on

patrolling duty, the Investigating Agency received information that Prince

Chopra (petitioner) and Sukhpreet Singh (since granted bail vide order dated

24.07.2023 passed in CRM-M-7589-2022) used to sell heroin and both of

them would be coming on a scooter from the side of Pamarsi to Sirhind to

deliver heroin to their customers. If a Naka was installed, they could be

apprehended.

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144927

2023:PHHC:144927

CRM-M-55895-2023 (O & M) ::2::-

Based on the said information, the aforementioned FIR was got

registered, a Naka was set up and the petitioner-Prince Chopra and

co-accused/Sukhpreet Singh were apprehended and the recovery of 1100

intoxicating tablets came to be effected from them.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

had been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of

Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with in their

proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the time of search

and seizure. As the petitioner was in custody since 12.12.2021 and only 03

out of the 19 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the trial of the present

case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he was

entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the 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

Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.

(s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated

29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023'., even

though, he was a convict in one other case under the NDPS Act arising out of

FIR No.78 dated 13.06.2017 under Sections 21 of the NDPS Act, Police

Station Guhla.

4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends

that commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from the

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144927

2023:PHHC:144927

CRM-M-55895-2023 (O & M) ::3::-

petitioner. Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the

NDPS Act, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail, moreso, when

he was a prior convict in a case arising out of FIR No.78 dated 13.06.2017

under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Guhla.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the 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.

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144927

2023:PHHC:144927

CRM-M-55895-2023 (O & M) ::4::-

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.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

7. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,

SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

"1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave Petition, who were accused of committing an offence under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS Act') in FIR No.18/2022, dated 09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.

2. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners. They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and four months.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144927

2023:PHHC:144927

CRM-M-55895-2023 (O & M) ::5::-

antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession of bail granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.

7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.