Punjab-Haryana High Court
Inderjit Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 September, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124933
202
2023:PHHC:124933
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46596-2023
DECIDED ON: 22.09.2023
INDERJIT SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khunger, 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., for the 3rd time seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0010 dated
21.01.2022, under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station
Sadar Shri Muktsar Sahib, District Shri Muktsar Sahib.
2. Since, the exact quantity of contraband cannot be ascertained, the
number of tablets i.e, 920 in itself is suffice to make out for this Court that the salt
of tramadol would not be more than 750 or 800 grams and from perusal of the FIR,
it is abundantly clear that the manufacturing date of the tablets is 12/2020, whereas
expiry date is 11/2022.
3. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is also doubting
the prosecution story, as while entering into the house, the plastic box was in the
hand of the petitioner, who on seeing the police party threw the same inside the
house.. In such an eventuality, he would have otherwise thrown the box out of his
house to disown the contraband, if any was there.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124933
4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. According to the custody certificate, the petitioner is
behind the bars for the last 1 year, 8 months and 1 days. He prays for dismissal of
the instant petition stating that the petitioner is apprehended with commercial
quantity i.e., 920 intoxicant tablets without having any licence or any authorisation
to keep the same. It is also asserted by learned State counsel that once the petitioner
was apprehended, he could not explain the purpose having in possession of the said
contraband.
5. Having heard, learned counsel for the respective parties.
6. After having gone through the record and on perusal of the FIR, the
story of the prosecution creates doubts as it has come in the FIR itself that on seeing
the police party, the petitioner has thrown the plastic box inside the house, when he
was entering the home and in fact, this argument of the petitioner also finds strength
that in such eventuality, he would have thrown the bag out of the house to disown
the said contraband and otherwise also the case of single accused in this recovery,
who has already suffered 1 year, 8 months, 1 day of custody cannot be allowed to
keep behind the bars for an indefinite period, wherein bail is a rule and jail is an
exception and it would also 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 upon the judgment of the Apex Court
passed in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 131, as out of total 15 prosecution witnesses, only 3 stands examined,
after framing the charges on 01.09.2022.
7. Looking into the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, this
petition deserves to be allowed. Hence, the petitioner is directed to be released on
regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124933
Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
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)
22.09.2023 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:124933
3 of 3
