Punjab-Haryana High Court
Charanjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125334
-1-
CRM-M-33197 of 2023
2023:PHHC:125334
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-33197 of 2023
Date of decision: 22.09.2023
Charanjit Singh
...........Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab
.......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bajwa, Addl. A.G., Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 439
Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.0267 dated 29.10.2021 under
Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
registered at Police Station Lehra, District Sangrur.
2. As per FIR, on 29.10.2021, ASI Lakhvir Singh along with the
police party were present at T point Jakhal road Lehra in the course of
patrolling and checking of suspected persons. At about 2:40 P.M. ASI
Lakhvir Singh received secret information that Charanjit Singh (petitioner),
who is R.M.P. doctor and is practicing at village Gujran is in the habit of
selling Narcotics to his customers by procuring them from Haryana. Today
he is coming from the side of Jakhal on his car Make Alto bearing No.PB-
34C-1464 and that if barricading is done near Nam Charcha Ghar Jakhal
Road Lehra, a heavy recovery can be effected from the accused. Information
being reliable, ASI Lakhvir Singh along with police party laid a barricade at
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125334
CRM-M-33197 of 2023
2023:PHHC:125334
the disclosed place. At about 3:20 P.M., the said car was seen coming. ASI
gave signal to stop the car. On seeing the police party, the driver of the car
became perplexed and tried to turn his car and suddenly the car stalled. Said
person threw the plastic bag on the embankment of the road, out of which
some strips got scattered. ASI apprehended the said person with the help of
other police officials. On being asked, he disclosed his name as Charanjit
Singh (petitioner) son of Avtar Singh, resident of Gujran, P.S.Dirba. On
checking the plastic bag and scattered strips, 398 strips of Clovidol 100-SR
containing 3980 intoxicant tablets having batch No. TVD-20289 MFG.
Aug. 2020, Exp. Jul. 2023, 29 strips of Clovidol 100-SR containing 290
intoxicant tablets, having batch No. TVD-20170 MFG. Jun.2020, Exp. May
2023, 145 strips of Alprasafe containing 1450 intoxicant tablets of
Alprasafe having batch no. DGTA-11190, MFG. Nov.2020, Exp.2022 and
78 strips of Alprasafe containing 780 intoxicant tablets having batch No.
PCCAA-652, MFG. 07/2020, Exp. 06/2023 i.e. total 6500 intoxicant tablets
were recovered.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner,
who is a licenced chemist, is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the
present case as he has not committed any offence. He further submits that
alleged recovery has not been effected from the car of the petitioner and
nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. He further submits that
petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2021. Learned counsel further submits
that investigation in the present case is complete; challan has been presented
on 25.04.2022; charges have been framed on 01.08.2022 and out of total 15
prosecution witnesses, only one prosecution witnesses has been examined
and the case is now fixed before the trial Court on 21.10.2023. Learned
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125334
CRM-M-33197 of 2023
2023:PHHC:125334
counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in "Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another", 2022(10) SCC 51, to contend that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has discussed the serious issue with regard to repeated
adjournments and its effect upon the Right to Life under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. He has also referred to a latest judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.943 of 2023 titled
as "Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)" decided on
28.03.2023 to contend that when there is a long delay in the trial and
especially when it is not the fault of the accused and in that situation even
the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will be diluted in the given facts
and circumstances of each and every case. Trial may take a considerable
time to conclude. Therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by
detaining the petitioner behind bars.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel, while placing on record
status report, has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner. He further submits that the recovery effected from the petitioner
is commercial in nature, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of
regular bail. However, he could not dispute the fact that investigation in the
present case is complete; challan has been presented on 25.04.2022; charges
have been framed on 01.08.2022; out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, only
one prosecution witnesses has been examined; the case is now fixed before
the trial Court on 21.10.2023; he is not involved in any other case under the
NDPS Act and the trial may take a considerable time to conclude.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125334
CRM-M-33197 of 2023
2023:PHHC:125334
6. In view of the custody period undergone by the petitioner, it is
apposite to refer to a few judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this
regard wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the concession of bail
solely on ground of long custody:-
Case Number Date of Decision Title of case Period which the
accused had
undergone when
granted bail by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court
Criminal Appeal 07.02.2020 Chitta Biswas @ 1 year and 7
No.245/2020 Subhas Vs. the months
State of West
Bengal
Criminal Appeal 12.10.2020 Amit Singh Moni 2 years and 7
No.668/2020 Vs. State of months
Himachal
Pradesh
Special Leave to 10.11.2021 Kulwant Singh More than 2 years
Appeal (Crl.) Vs. The State of
No.5187 of 2021 Punjab
Special Leave to 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary 1 year and 7
Appeal (Crl.) @ Bapan Vs. the months
No.5769/2022 State of West
Bengal
Special Leave to 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ 1 year and 6
Appeal (Crl.) Sarif Vs. the State months
No.4173 of 2022 of West Bengal
Criminal Appeal 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna 2 years 1 month
No.1169 of 2022 Patra @ and 17 days
Gopalrusma Vs.
Union of India
Special Leave to 22.08.2022 Mohammad About 2 years
Appeal (Crl.) Salman Hanif
No.5530-2022 Shaikh Vs. the
State of Gurjarat
Special Leave to 31.10.2022 Shahjad Vs. The About 2 years
Appeal (Crl.) State of Uttar
No.7840 of 2022 Pradesh
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.4169 of 2023 - Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha decided on
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125334
CRM-M-33197 of 2023
2023:PHHC:125334
13.07.2023 has held that in case of prolonged incarceration, conditional
liberty will override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act as the prolonged incarceration is against fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. Keeping in view the custody of the petitioner, which is about
01 year 11 months; investigation is complete; challan has been presented;
charges have been framed and out of 15 prosecution witnesses, only 01
prosecution witness has been examined and trial is likely to take a
considerable time, however, without commenting upon the merits of the
case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on
his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa
Magistrate/Trial Court. However, in addition to conditions that may be
imposed by the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, the petitioner shall
remain bound by the following conditions: -
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence oral or
documentary during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to
the one alleged in the present case.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any with the
trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the
police authorities and shall not change his cell-phone
number without permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the
trial.
9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125334
CRM-M-33197 of 2023
2023:PHHC:125334
which may be imposed by the trial Court, the prosecution shall be at liberty
to move an application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
10. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
22.09.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:125334
6 of 6
