Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sona Singh vs State Of Punjab on 4 April, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
2024:PHHC:045667
CRM-M-62746-2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision : April 04, 2024
CRM-M-62746-2023
Sona Singh
......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
......Respondent
AND
CRM-M-62767-2023
Amarjeet Singh @ Sonu
......Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. J.S.Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioners.
Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
This common order shall dispose of two petitions i.e.
CRM-M-62746-2023 titled as 'Sona Singh Vs. State of Punjab' and
CRM-M-62767-2023 titled as 'Amarjeet Singh Vs. State of Punjab'. For the
sake of convenience the facts have been taken from CRM-M-62746-2023.
2. The prayer in the present petition(s) under Section 439 Cr.PC is
for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.121 dated 12.10.2022 under
Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Lakho Ke
Behram District Ferozepur.
2024:PHHC:045667
CRM-M-62746-2023 (O&M) -2-
3. The brief facts of the case are that Sona Singh-petitioner
(CRM-M-62746-2023) and Amarjeet Singh @ Sonu-petitioner
(CRM-M-62767-2023) came to be apprehended with 4200 intoxicating
tablets of Alprazolam (ALPRASAFE 0.5 mg.) and 12000 tablets of
Tramadol Hydrochloride (Trakem-100 SR).
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the
petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory
provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied
with in their proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the
time of search and seizure. As they were first-time offenders, in custody
since 12.10.2022 and none of the 12 prosecution witnesses had been
examined so far, the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded
anytime soon. Therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the concession of
bail in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in
CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman &
others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s) 3221/2023
arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in
CRM (NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023.
5. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that
commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioners.
Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
the petitioners are not entitled to the grant of bail. She, however, concedes
that the petitioners were first time offenders, in custody since 12.10.2022
and none of the 12 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.
2024:PHHC:045667
CRM-M-62746-2023 (O&M) -3-
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided
on 01.08.2022 held as under:-
"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy
of the show cause notice along with Special Leave
Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the
State of West Bengal and separate notice has been
served on the State also. However, no one has entered
appearance on their behalf.
The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R.
No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section
21(c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police
Station Bongaon, West Bengal.
During the course of the hearing, we are
informed that the petitioner has undergone custody
for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on
09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only
one witness has been examined. The petitioner does
not have any criminal antecedents.
Taking into consideration the period of sentence
undergone by the petitioner and all the attending
circumstances but without expressing any views in the
merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the
petitioner.
The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be
released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to
the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the
aforestated terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of."
2024:PHHC:045667
CRM-M-62746-2023 (O&M) -4-
8. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West
Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as
under:-
"1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave
Petition, who were accused of committing an
offence under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for
short, `NDPS Act') in FIR No.18/2022, dated
09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur,
District Murshidabad, West Bengal.
2. The allegations are that when the police party
intercepted the petitioners along with another
person riding on two motorcycles, they were found
in possession of codeine phosphate in a
consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two
nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml.
each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint
possession of the petitioners. They were arrested
on the spot and have been in custody for more
than one year and four months.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the record.
4. The investigation is complete; charge-sheet has
been filed, though the charges are yet to be
framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take
some reasonable time, regardless of the
direction issued by the High Court to conclude
the same within one year from the date of
framing of charges. The petitioners do not have
any criminal antecedents. There is, thus,
substantial compliance of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act.
2024:PHHC:045667
CRM-M-62746-2023 (O&M) -5-
5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any
views on the merits of the case, we deem it
appropriate to release the petitioners on bail
subject to the terms and conditions as may be
imposed by the Trial Court.
6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the
petitioners are found involved in any other case
under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall
amount to misuse of the concession of bail granted
to them today, and in such a case, necessary
consequences shall follow.
7. The petitioners are further directed to appear
before the Trial Court regularly. In the event of
they being absent, it shall again be taken as a
misuse of concession of bail.
8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in
the above terms.
9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also
stands disposed of.
(emphasis supplied)
9. In the instant case, the petitioners are stated to be in custody
since 12.10.2022 and none of the 12 prosecution witnesses have been
examined so far. They are also first-time offenders with no other case
registered against them. In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a
speedy trial and the case of the petitioners can be considered for the grant of
bail.
10. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the above
mentioned petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be
2024:PHHC:045667
CRM-M-62746-2023 (O&M) -6-
released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
11. The petitioner(s) shall appear before the police station
concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial
and inform in writing each time that they are not involved in any other crime
other than the present case.
12. In addition, the petitioner(s) (or anyone on their behalf) shall
prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each and deposit the same with
the Trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case
of the absence of the petitioner(s) from trial without sufficient cause.
13. The petitions stand disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
April 04, 2024 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
Whether reportable : YES / NO
