Tarsem Lal vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 15045 P&H

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115938




203
                                       2023:PHHC:115938
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CRM-M-39273-2023
                                        DECIDED ON: 04.09.2023

TARSEM LAL
                                                           .....PETITIONER

                                      VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                           .....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu and Mr. Abhinav Prashar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG Punjab.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439

Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.166, dated 29.11.2021,

under Sections 22 (c) and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station

Khuiansarwar District Fazilka, Punjab.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has

been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submitted that the petitioner

is in custody from 05.12.2021, which is almost 1 year 9 months and 3 days as of

now and charges in the present case were framed on 01.06.2022 and almost more

than a year has elapsed since then not even a single prosecution witness has been

examined till date. It is asserted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner that

the alleged recovery i.e. 31600 intoxicating tablets has been shown to be effected

from the trala bearing registration No. PB-05T-9327, which was being driven by the

co-accused of the petitioner namely Rimpa and the petitioner was sitting

on the conductor seat of the said trala. He further submitted that even as per the

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115938

prosecution story and the FIR itself, there was no recovery effected from the

conscious possession of the petitioner and as per the FIR, the petitioner was sitting

on the conductor seat of the trala. He further submitted that mandatory provisions of

the NDPS Act as provided under Section 42, 50 and 52 have not been complied

with by the prosecution. He further submitted that it was a pre-planned effort on the

part of the police because of political rivalry and the bar contained under Section 37

of the NDPS Act will not apply to the present petitioner particularly in view of the

fact that the alleged recovery was not effected from the conscious possession of the

petitioner.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab has submitted that it

is correct that the petitioner is in custody for about 1 year 9 months and 3 days and

after the framing of charges on 01.06.2022, no prosecution witness has been

examined till date. He has however opposed the grant of regular bail to the

petitioner on the ground that since the recovery from the petitioner and other co-

accused was 31600 intoxicating tablets, which falls in the category of commercial

quantity, the prayer of the petitioner is hit by the bar contained under Section 37 of

the NDPS Act. He further submitted that even if the tablets were recovered from the

trala, still it cannot be said that there was no recovery effected from the petitioner.

He does not dispute the fact that there is no other case of any nature is pending

against the petitioner.

4. Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 1 year

9 months and 3 days as of now added with the facts that charges have been framed

on 01.06.2022; no prosecution witness has been examined till date, which suffice to

the mind of this Court that trial is likely to take long time, which would violate the

principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of

Constitution of India, as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while

relying the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115938

Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, this Court is of the view that no

useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for an

indefinite period.

5. In light of the above discussions made hereinabove as well as judgment of

Apex Court rendered in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP(Crl)

No.6690 of 2022, wherein it has been held that though 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 1 year, 9 months and 3, we are satisfied that

the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with. In the case in hand, the

petitioner is not involved in any other case of any nature meaning thereby he is having

clean antecedents.

6. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner

is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

7. The present petition is, hereby, allowed.

8. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be

construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                  (SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
04.09.2023                                              JUDGE
Meenu



Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
Whether reportable                Yes/No




                                                              Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:115938

                                         3 of 3