Punjab-Haryana High Court
Brahmjeet Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045980
CRM-M-29143-2020 (O/M) -1- 2024:PHHC:045980
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-29143-2020 (O/M)
Date of decision : 04.04.2024
Brahmjeet Singh ........ Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Akshay Chadha, Ms. Kashish Aggarwal and
Mr. Raghav Chadha, Advocates
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vishal Malik, DAG Haryana.
-.- -.-
HARSH BUNGER, J.
1. This is a first petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of
petitioner (Brahmjeet Singh) for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 236
dated 05.07.2020, under Sections 18 and 27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the NDPS. Act'),
registered at Police Station Sadar, Fatehabad.
2. In pursuance of an advance notice served upon the State of Haryana,
reply by way of affidavit dated 05.10.2020 of Mr. Ajaib Singh, HPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad has been filed on behalf
of State of Haryana, which is already on record.
3. Custody certificate dated 02.04.2024 of the petitioner is filed by
learned State counsel in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all just
exceptions.
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045980
CRM-M-29143-2020 (O/M) -2- 2024:PHHC:045980
4. Briefly, the aforesaid case FIR was registered on the basis of a ruqa
prepared by Sub Inspector Kishori Lal, who averred that on 04.07.2020, when he
was present in Crime Investigation Branch, Fatehabad then a Special Messenger
informed him that a truck bearing No. HR-62-7926 loaded with iron pipe/angles
etc. was going to Sirsa from Jamshedpur wherein two persons were travelling, one
driver namely Ashok Chopra, who was having 10 kg. opium and another was
cleaner; after some time, the said truck would reach near Dhani Chanan and
said 10 kg opium would be delivered to Brahmjeet Singh (petitioner) and said
Brahmjeet Singh (petitioner) would come near Dhani Chanan in his car bearing
No. HR24-R-8818 to take the opium. If secret surveillance be done near Dhani
Chanan then 10 kg opium could be recovered from Ashok Chopra, driver of said
truck. Considering the secret information to be reliable, a report was reduced into
writing in Roznamacha, as per Section 42 of NDPS Act and the information was
sent to DSP Daljit Singh through EHC Subhash Chander and thereafter, he (IO)
alongwith other police officials reached at Dhani Chanan on Sirsa Road for
surveillance. In the meanwhile, a truck bearing No. HR62-7926 was seen coming
from Hisar side, which stopped near Rajwara Bridge of service road at Dhani
Chanan. After some time, a car bearing No. HR24-R-8818 came from Sirsa side
and stopped near the truck, from which a person came out and started
conversation with the driver of said truck from window side, whereupon he (IO)
alongwith other fellow members surrounded the truck and found two persons
sitting in the cabin of the truck. All the persons present there were apprehended,
who disclosed their names as Ashok Chopra (driver), Buta Singh (cleaner) and
Brahmjeet Singh (petitioner). On being suspicious of having some intoxicant
substance with them, separate notices under Section 50 of NDPS Act were served
upon those three persons and their option of getting themselves searched before a
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045980
CRM-M-29143-2020 (O/M) -3- 2024:PHHC:045980
Gazetted Officer or Illaqa Magistrate was also put to them, upon which they opted
to get themselves searched from a Gazetted Officer, whereupon DSP Daljeet
Singh was informed and he reached at the spot at 2.45 am in official vehicle.
5. After following the due procedure, the search of all three persons and
the truck was conducted and a plastic bag was found lying in the cabin of the
truck near the driver seat. On checking the said plastic bag, opium was recovered,
which, on weighing was found to be 10 kg. The recovered contraband was sealed
and the same was taken into police possession.
6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is submitted that
the petitioner has not committed any offence. It is contended that the petitioner
was travelling by his own car and does not even know the driver of alleged truck.
It is further contended that nothing has been recovered from the petitioner.
7. Learned senior counsel further submits that the petitioner has
undergone actual custody in the instant case for a period of 3 years, 8 months
and 26 days (as on 02.04.2024); investigation in the case is complete; challan
stands presented on 03.02.2021; charges have been framed on 04.10.2022 and no
other case is pending against the petitioner. It is stated that out of the total 32
prosecution witnesses, only 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined; trial in
the case is likely to take some time to conclude and no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period. Learned
senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Fatehabad has wrongly dismissed the application for regular bail filed on
behalf of the petitioner vide order dated 26.08.2020. Learned senior counsel for
the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions as
may be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court. Learned senior counsel further
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045980
CRM-M-29143-2020 (O/M) -4- 2024:PHHC:045980
submits that the petitioner is also willing to furnish security in the form of Fixed
Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) before the concerned Court, so as to ensure his presence
before the Court on each and every date of hearing. As regards the offence under
Section 27-A of the NDPS Act is concerned, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner relies upon the judgment rendered by this court in
CRM-M-50808-2022 titled as Pooja alias Pooja Rani V. State of Punjab,
decided on 30.11.2022. Accordingly, prayer for grant of regular bail is made.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of petitioner for
grant of regular bail on the ground of seriousness and gravity of the offence. It is
submitted that in the instant case, the recovery of 10 kg. of opium from the
petitioner, falls under the category of 'commercial quantity' and thus, rigors of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. It is also submitted by
learned State counsel that in case, the petitioner is extended the benefit of regular
bail then there is every likelihood that he may influence prosecution witnesses or
may even abscond and thus delay the trial. Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of
instant petition has been made.
9. Further, learned State counsel while referring to the custody
certificate has submitted that there is no other case pending against the petitioner
and he has undergone actual custody in this case for a period of 3 years, 8 months
and 26 days (as on 02.04.2024). It is also conceded by learned State counsel that
investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented and charges have
also been framed. It is also not disputed that till date, out of 32 prosecution
witnesses, only 6 prosecution witnesses have been examined.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper
book as well as reply dated 05.10.2020 and custody certificate dated 02.04.2024
of the petitioner, filed by State of Haryana.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045980
CRM-M-29143-2020 (O/M) -5- 2024:PHHC:045980
11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla
Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No. 6690/2022 decided
on 25.01.2023 observed that in case of long custody period, involving quantity
recovered to be of commercial nature, where the trial is yet to commence, though
charges had been framed, the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act can
be dispensed with. In the case of Bhupender Singh Versus Narcotic Control
Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, the Division Bench of this Court observed with
regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act.
Similarly, in the case of Shariful Islam alias Sarif Versus The State of West
Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon'ble the Supreme
Court granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of
contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there
being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In the case of Munasi
Masih Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, decided on 06.02.2023, this
Court granted bail to a first offender from whom commercial quantity of
contraband had been recovered and only 2 out of 13 PWs have been examined, by
observing that in view of delayed trial, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act can
be diluted to an extent and the petitioner can be granted bail, keeping in mind the
right to a speedy trial as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
12. As regards the offence under Section 27-A of NDPS Act is
concerned, in Pooja's case (supra), it was observed that to attract the provisions of
Section 27-A of NDPS Act, there has to be substantial material to indicate any
degree of continuity and regularity in drug dealing, so as to enable the Court to
form an opinion that the accused was trafficking in drugs. The said fact would be
a subject matter of trial.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045980
CRM-M-29143-2020 (O/M) -6- 2024:PHHC:045980
13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that
the petitioner is in custody for a period of 3 years, 8 months and 26 days (as
on 02.04.2024); investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented
on 03.02.2021 and even charges have been framed on 04.10.2022, however, the
fact remains that during this long period, out of 32 prosecution witnesses, only 6
prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, therefore, trial in the case is
likely to take some time to conclude. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner
does not have any criminal antecedents.
14. So far as the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel that the
witnesses could be influenced by the petitioner, suffice it to state that in the event
of any such conduct, the prosecution can always approach the competent Court
for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, it is observed that the State/Prosecuting
Agency/State police shall be at liberty to observe the behaviour of the petitioner
during the bail period, and in case it feels that the petitioner is indulging in
influencing any of the witnesses or tampering with the prosecution evidence in
any manner or otherwise causing interference with the progress of trial, it shall be
open for the State/Prosecuting Agency/State police to move to the trial Court for
cancellation of the bail, which shall be decided by the trial Court on merits.
15. In view of the above discussion, present petition is allowed and the
petitioner (Brahmjeet Singh) is ordered to be released on regular bail subject to
his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa
Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, the concerned Station House
Officer shall be informed about the release of petitioner and the petitioner shall
inform the concerned Station House Officer about his address at which he intends
to reside during the pendency of case/trial and any change in the address shall be
communicated to the concerned Station House Officer, forthwith. The petitioner
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:045980
CRM-M-29143-2020 (O/M) -7- 2024:PHHC:045980
would also furnish his telephone number to the concerned Station House Officer.
He would also furnish his undertaking to the effect that he will not indulge in any
illegal activity. The petitioner shall also appear before the concerned Police
Station/Station House Officer on every alternate Monday till the conclusion of
trial.
16. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare a
Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) in the sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and submit the same
with the trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law, in case
the petitioner remains absent from trial without any sufficient cause.
17. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed to be an
observation on merits of the case and the facts and circumstances recorded above
are only for consideration of the prayer for bail at this stage.
18. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
19. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
(HARSH BUNGER)
JUDGE
04.04.2024
sjks
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
7 of 7
