Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurjant Singh Alias Janta vs State Of Punjab on 3 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046804
2024:PHHC:046804
CRM-M-54046-2023 with connected cases -1-
203
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-54046-2023
Date of Decision: 03.04.2024
Gurjant Singh @ Janta ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CRM-M-65298-2023
Gagandeep Singh @ Gaga ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CRM-M-6620-2024
Bhagwant Singh @ Bhappa ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-54046-2023.
Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-65298-2023.
Mr. Vivek Singla Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-6620-2024.
Mr. A.S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. These petitions have been filed under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioners and are
being taken up together for final disposal with the consent of the learned
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046804
2024:PHHC:046804
CRM-M-54046-2023 with connected cases -2-
counsels for the petitioners, since they arise out of the same FIR bearing
No.127 dated 22.12.2021, under Sections 15, 22, 25, 29, 61, 85 of the NDPS
Act, registered at Police Station Tapa, District Barnala.
2. Status report by way of affidavit of Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Sub Division Tapa, District Barnala has been filed in CRM-M-
54046-2023 by the learned State Counsel in Court today and the same is
taken on record.
3. As per the allegation, an information was received by the police
that two persons, namely, Gagandeep Singh @ Gaga (Petitioner in CRM-M-
65298-2023) and Bhagwant Singh @ Bhappa (Petitioner in CRM-M-6620-
2024) were indulged in smuggling of narcotics and thereafter there has been
a recovery of 25,000 tablets of Tramadol plus 10,000 loose tablets and the
total 35,000 tablets from the boot of the car which was being driven by the
aforesaid petitioner, namely, Gagandeep Singh @ Gaga. Thereafter, the
second accused, namely, Bhagwant Singh was arrested and it was on his
disclosure that there was a recovery of 200 tablets from a different place. So
far as the petitioner, namely, Gurjant Singh alias Janta is concerned, he was
nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the petitioner, namely,
Gagandeep Singh @ Gaga, by stating that the contraband was to be sold to
Gurjant Singh @ Janta because he is running a medical shop.
4. All the petitioners are in custody for about 2 years and 3
months.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner,
namely, Gurjant Singh @ Janta in CRM-M-54046-2023 submitted that the
petitioner has clean antecedents and he was nominated purely on the basis of
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046804
2024:PHHC:046804
CRM-M-54046-2023 with connected cases -3-
the disclosure statement of the co-accused, namely, Gagandeep Singh @
Gaga and there is no other material to connect the petitioner with the present
offence except for the disclosure statement of the aforesaid co-accused and
he has already suffered incarceration for about 2 years 3 months and 8 days.
He further submitted that the disclosure statement of the co-accused in the
absence of any other material to connect the petitioner with the offence is
otherwise also not admissible in evidence especially in view of a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Tofan Singh Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu", 2021(4) SCC 1. He submitted that considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, the petitioner may be considered for grant of
regular bail.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
Bhagwant Singh @ Bhappa in CRM-M-6620-2024 submitted that so far as
the present petitioner is concerned, he is also not involved in any other case
and he was wrongly named in the present FIR on the basis of some suspicion
but he was not even in the car from where the aforesaid 35,000 tablets were
recovered but it was later on when he was arrested then as per the
prosecution story, his disclosure statement was recorded and in pursuance
thereof, only 200 tablets of Tramadol were recovered which do not fall in
the category of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act. He submitted that
considering his custody as well, he may be considered for grant of regular
bail.
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-
Gagandeep Singh @ Gagga in CRM-M-65298-2023 submitted that although
as per the prosecution story, there was a recovery of 35,000 tablets from the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046804
2024:PHHC:046804
CRM-M-54046-2023 with connected cases -4-
boot of the car in which he was traveling but considering the custody which
is 2 years 3 months and 8 days, he may be considered for the grant of regular
bail because his incarceration is too long.
8. On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Pannu, learned Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab submitted that these are the successive bail petitions which
have been filed because of the increased custody of the petitioners. On the
factual aspect, he has not disputed the same but he has stated that so far as
the petitioner, namely, Gagandeep Singh @ Gaga is concerned, there was a
huge recovery of 35,000 tablets of Tramadol from the boot of the car in
which he was traveling and was caught red handed along with the aforesaid
contraband and the recovery is not only huge but it also falls in the category
of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act and therefore, the bar contained
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will apply in the present case. So far as
the antecedents of the petitioners, namely, Gurjant Singh @ Janta and
Bhagwant Singh @ Bhappa are concerned, he has not disputed the same and
also not disputed that from the petitioner-Gurjant Singh @ Janta, there was
no recovery but from the petitioner, namely, Bhagwant Singh @ Bhappa,
there was a recovery of 200 tablets of Tramadol, on his own disclosure
which does not fall in the category of commercial quantity and all of them
are in custody for more than 2 years. He also submitted that as of now, 12
out of 25 witnesses have already been examined.
9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
10. The role of all the petitioners is to be considered separately. So
far as the petitioner, namely, Gurjant Singh @ Janta is concerned, as per the
learned counsel for the parties, there was no recovery from him and he was
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046804
2024:PHHC:046804
CRM-M-54046-2023 with connected cases -5-
nominated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused,
namely, Gagandeep Singh @ Gaga and he has clean antecedents and is not
involved in any other case. So far as the petitioner, namely, Bhagwant Singh
@ Bhappa is concerned, from him there was an alleged recovery of 200
tablets of Tramadol from his own disclosure statement after he was arrested
since he was named in the FIR but he was not traveling in the car from
where the contraband i.e. 35,000 tablets of Tramadol was recovered. The
aforesaid recovery of 200 tablets from the petitioner, namely, Bhagwant
Singh @ Bhappa does not fall in the category of commercial quantity under
the NDPS Act and qua him, the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act will not apply. So far as the petitioner, namely, Gagandeep Singh @
Gaga is concerned, he was traveling in the car from where the aforesaid
contraband was recovered which was a huge quantity i.e. of 35,000 tablets of
Tramadol. All the petitioners have faced incarceration for more than 2 years.
11. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties, this Court is of the view that so far as the petitioners, namely,
Gurjant Singh @ Janta and Bhagwant Singh @ Bhappa are concerned, the
bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply qua them
since there was no recovery from the petitioner-Gurjant Singh @ Janta and
so far as the petitioner-Bhagwant Singh @ Bhappa is concerned, there was a
recovery of only 200 tablets of Tramadol and their custody is also more than
two years. Therefore, both the petitioners, namely, Gurjant Singh @ Janta
and Bhagwant Singh @ Bhappa deserve the concession of regular bail.
18. Consequently, qua the petitioners, namely, Gurjant Singh @
Janta and Bhagwant Singh @ Bhappa, the petitions are allowed and they are
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046804
2024:PHHC:046804
CRM-M-54046-2023 with connected cases -6-
ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds
to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not
required in any other case.
19. So far as the petitioner, namely, Gagandeep Singh @ Gaga is
concerned, from him there was a recovery of 35,000 tablets of Tramadol
which is not only a huge quanity but also falls in the category of commercial
quantity. No ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner for making a departure from the bar contained under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act and therefore, qua him, the present petition is hereby
dismissed.
20. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as
an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is only meant for the
purpose of decision of present petition.
03.04.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
