Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranjit Singh @ Jeeta vs State Of Punjab on 15 April, 2024
2024:PHHC:049714
CRM-M-3863-2024 -1-
202
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-3863-2024
Date of Decision: 15.04.2024
Ranjit Singh @ Jeeta ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab.
*****
HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner (Ranjit Singh @ Jeeta) has filed this third petition
under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.50, dated 06.03.2020, under
Section 15 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985,
and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station
Patran, District Patiala.
2. The earlier two petitions filed by petitioner seeking regular bail
were withdrawn by petitioner vide order dated 16.03.2023 (Annexure P-1)
and 17.11.2023 (Annexure P-2).
3. Status report by way of affidavit dated 06.03.2024 of Mr. Daljit
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049714
Singh Virk, P.P.S., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Patran,
District Patiala, has been filed on behalf of State of Punjab, which is already
on record.
4. Custody certificate dated 14.04.2024 of the petitioner has been
filed by learned State counsel in Court today, which is taken on record,
subject to all just exceptions.
5. Briefly, the aforesaid case FIR was registered on the basis of a
ruqa prepared by ASI Paramjit Singh, who stated that on 06.03.2020, he
along with his fellow employees, in a private vehicle, was present at bypass
Patran, near Liquor Vend Chowk in the area of Village Kahangarh, for the
purpose of patrolling and checking of suspected persons. Then, at about 7:30
P.M., ASI Paramajit Singh received a secret information from an informer
that Ranjit Singh @ Jeeta (petitioner herein), Gurwinder Singh @ Mintu and
Gurpreet Singh @ Kala have a Swift Car without number and they used to
bring dried broken piece of poppy pods in the said car from other state and
supply the same in Punjab and that day (06.03.2020) they have parked the
said car outside Kals Washing Point, situated in Mistri Market, Kahangarh
and have connived with Lachhman Singh-owner of Kals Washing Point and
stored the dried broken piece of poppy pods in his garage. After complying
with the provisions of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, the
aforesaid case FIR was registered on the basis of ruqa.
6. As per the status report, the investigation was carried out by
Inspector Baljit Singh, who along with police party reached at the spot,
where ASI Paramjit Singh produced the apprehended persons-Gurwinder
Singh @ Mintu, Gurpreet Singh @ Kala and Lachhman Ram. ASI Paramjit
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049714
Singh informed Inspector Baljit Singh that when he reached at the spot then
he saw seven heavy plastic bags having loose seals, wherein poppy pods
were clearly visible and three youngsters were moving their hands in it.
ASI Paramjit Singh further informed that present petitioner (Ranjit Singh @
Jeeta), on seeing the police party fled away from the spot in the said Swift
Car. After following the due procedure, the search was carried out and from
seven plastic bags, poppy pods weighing 10 kg each (in total 70 kg of poppy
pods) was recovered. All the bags were marked as No.1 to No.7, duly sealed
and taken into police possession.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case and he was
not arrested at the spot. It is submitted that the alleged recovery has already
been effected and nothing has been recovered from the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested in this case
on 22.12.2021 and since then he is in custody. It is further submitted that the
investigation in this case is complete; challan/supplementary challan stands
presented and trial is going on. It is stated that there are total 18 prosecution
witnesses, however, only 7 witnesses have been examined till date, therefore
the conclusion of trial is likely to take some time and no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Learned counsel
for the petitioner contends that the bail application under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, filed on behalf of the petitioner before the
Court of learned Judge Special Court, Patiala has been wrongly declined
vide order dated 11.11.2022 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions as
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049714
may be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court. Learned counsel further
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.
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 the recovered contraband in the instant
case falls under the category of 'commercial quantity' and thus, rigors of
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are attracted in this case. While referring to
the custody certificate, learned State counsel has submitted that besides the
present case, the petitioner is also involved in several other cases. Learned
State counsel further states that there is an apprehension that in the event of
grant of bail, the petitioner may influence the witnesses or may even
abscond to delay the trial. Accordingly, prayer has been made for dismissal
of the present petition.
However, learned State counsel has not disputed that the
petitioner was not arrested at the spot and petitioner has undergone actual
custody in this case for a period of two years, three months and twenty two
days (as on 14.04.2024). It is also not disputed that out of 18 prosecution
witnesses, only 7 witnesses have been examined till date.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi
v. State of U.P. and another, 2012(2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and
circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049714
application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely
on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases. The relevant
portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below :-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of
criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot
be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out
the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away
from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper book, status report dated 06.03.2024 as well as custody certificate
dated 14.04.2024.
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.
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049714
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Dataram Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr, 2018(2) RCR (Criminal) 131, has held that freedom
of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when
his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the aforesaid judgement that a person is believed to be innocent
until found guilty.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled Umarmia Alias Mamumia v.
State of Gujarat, (2017) 2 SCC 731, has held delay in criminal trial to be in
violation of right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
14. In Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta v. CBI, (2017) 5 SCC 218,
Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the
solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether
it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial.
15. Pertinently, appropriate directions can be issued for securing the
attendance of the petitioner during the trial.
16. In the instant case, the petitioner was not arrested at the spot but
was apprehended subsequently. Petitioner is in custody since 24.12.2021;
supplementary challan stands presented on 31.01.2022 and trial is going on;
however, only 7 witnesses have been examined out of total 18 witnesses.
Therefore, this Court has reason to believe that the trial in this case is likely
to take some time to conclude.
17. So far as the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel
that the petitioner may influence the witnesses or may even abscond in order
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049714
to delay the trial, 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.
18. In view of the above discussion and in the light of judgment in
Maulana's case (supra), the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety
bonds with two local sureties 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 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 alternate Monday of every month till the conclusion of
trial.
authenticity of this document/judgment
2024:PHHC:049714
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
22. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
15.04.2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
Himani JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this document/judgment
