Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Singh Alias Raju vs State Of Punjab on 21 September, 2023
2023:PHHC:124393
CRM-M-38467-2021 -l-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
207 CRM-M-38467-2021
Date of decision:21.09.2023
RAJINDER SINGH ALIAS RAJU .. PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB ..» RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. A.P.S. Tung, DAG, Punjab.
3B KK
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1.
This is the 1* petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in:-
SHEETAL
2023.09.22 15:44
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
21 |28.02.2021|Arniwala, District} 15, 25 and 29 of the NDPS
Fazilka Act, 1985
Version of the prosecution is that secret information was received
that Rajinder Singh @ Raju, present petitioner, is indulging in the
sale of poppy husk. On the basis of information, petitioner, who
was parked his vehicle on the bank of a canal, was apprehended
and recovery of 13 bags containing 230 kg. of poppy husk was
effected.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that no recovery has been
effected from the possession of the petitioner and the recovery has
allegedly been effected from an abandoned vehicle. He submits
2023:PHHC:124393
that the petitioner is nor the owner of the vehicle, which is evident
from the status report filed by the State. It is his argument that
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been complied
with at the time of search and seizure and no independent witness
was associated at the time of alleged search. Counsel submits that
the petitioner was serving as a salesman at a footwear shop in
Jalalabad and has been falsely implicated. He has placed reliance
upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in SEP (Crl) No.6690 of
2022 titled as Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Versus The State of Uttar
Pradesh, decided on 25.01.2023. He asserts that the petitioner is
entitled to be released on bail as he is in custody since 24.02.2021
and trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.
4. Per contra, State counsel, upon instructions from ASI Bhajan Das,
has opposed the petition and has submitted that as the recovery
effected falls within the ambit of commercial quantity, rigor of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act is attracted. By making a reference to
the short reply, which is taken on record, he submits that the
petitioner has named Kulwinder Singh, who has_ been
apprehended and Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky as co-accused. As per
his specific instructions, charge against the petitioner was framed
on 19.08.2021 and 05 out of 17 prosecution witnesses have been
examined.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their respective
submissions.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (supra),
has observed as under:-
SHEETAL
2023.09.22 15:44
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:124393
21.09.
sheetal
SHEETAL
2023.09.22 15:44
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
ae en 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."
Noticing that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is facing the
trial for the last almost 31 months and that the trial is not likely to
conclude in the near future, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged
on bail. This Court is, therefore, satisfied that petitioner's case
falls within the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court in
Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (supra) reproduced above.
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.
Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
2023 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
