Punjab-Haryana High Court
Didar Singh Alias Kaddu vs State Of Punjab on 19 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052856
CRM-M-1310-2024 (O&M) -1-
2024:PHHC:052856
203-2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-1310-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 19.04.2024
Didar Singh @ Kaddu
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Senior DAG, Punjab.
*****
HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)
CRM-14464-2024:
Prayer in the present application is for placing on record copies
of zimni orders passed by the learned Special Judge, Kapurthala as
Annexure P-8.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, copies of zimni
orders (Annexure P-8) passed by the learned Special Judge, Kapurthala are
taken on record, subject to all just exception.
Application is accordingly disposed of.
CRM-M-1310-2024:
1. This is second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure on behalf of petitioner (Didar Singh @ Kaddu)
for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.295 dated 13.11.2021
(Annexure P-1) under Sections 15(C) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052856
CRM-M-1310-2024 (O&M) -2-
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the N.D.P.S. Act')
(offence under Section 25 of the N.D.P.S. Act added later on), registered at
Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.
2. The first petition (CRM-M-46018-2022) was dismissed as
withdrawn vide order dated 12.12.2022.
3. Custody certificate dated 18.04.2024 of the petitioner is filed by
learned State counsel in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all
just exceptions.
4. Briefly, the aforestated case FIR (Annexure P-1) was registered
on the basis of ruqa, wherein it was stated that on 13.11.2021,
Sub Inspector Harjeet Singh along with the police party was going from
Police Station to Village Totti to Village Rampur Jagir, there they met
Inspector Surjit Singh I/C, C.I.A. Staff, Kapurthala with police party, in
connection with patrolling duty and search of bad elements. When they
reached half kilometer ahead of Village Sherpur Dona, they noticed that one
Innova car (light golden colour) was parked on the path and there was a
katcha rasta on left hand side going towards fields, where a truck was also
parked; in front of which, six persons were filling the sacks; and upon seeing
the police party, four of the said persons fled away from the spot in their
Innova car, whom Sub Inspector Harjeet Singh and Assistant Sub Inspector
Gurdeep Singh already knew by their names, as Gurdit Singh @ Gittu son of
Gurdeep Singh, his brother Tikka Singh son of Gurdeep Singh, Didar Singh
@ Kaddu (petitioner) son of Darbara Singh and Parmatma Singh @ Bhola
son of Jagir Singh, all residents of Village Sench, Police Station Sultanpur
Lodhi. The said Innova car was chased by Inspector Surjit Singh and police
party; and in the meanwhile, the remaining two persons also tried to flee
away from the spot by starting the truck but they were apprehended by the
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052856
CRM-M-1310-2024 (O&M) -3-
police party. Upon enquiry, the person driving the truck disclosed his name
as Gurcharan Singh son of Sukhdev Singh resident of New Chandan Nagar
Kartarpur, Police Station Kartarpur, District Jalandhar and the person
apprehended from the cleaner side disclosed his name as Sandeep Singh son
of Bhajan Singh resident of Bhagiwala, Police Station Mehtapur, District
Jalandhar.
5. Thereafter, by following the due procedure, the search of truck
was conducted, whereupon eighteen bags containing poppy husk were
recovered, which on weighing came to be 15 kilograms in each bag
(in total 270 kilograms). The recovered contraband was converted into
parcel and sealed and was taken into police possession.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is
submitted that the petitioner was not arrested at the spot. It is further
submitted that petitioner has been roped in this case only on the statement of
Assistant Sub Inspector Gurdeep Singh, who is inimical towards petitioner
and other three persons (Gurdit Singh @ Gittu, Tikka Singh and Parmatma
Singh @ Bhola). Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the alleged
recovery has been effected from the truck; and neither any recovery has been
effected from petitioner nor he has any connection with the alleged recovery
or the truck in question.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that the
petitioner is involved in one more case (FIR No.127 dated 27.12.2021)
under the N.D.P.S. Act; however, he has already been granted the concession
of regular bail in the said case by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
order dated 12.09.2023 passed in CRM-M-48517-2022. A copy of the order
is also handed over by learned counsel for the petitioner in Court today,
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052856
CRM-M-1310-2024 (O&M) -4-
which is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has undergone actual custody in the instant case for a period of two years,
one month and five days (as on 18.04.2024); investigation in the case is
complete, challan stands presented and charges have been framed on
28.08.2023, however on account of arrest of co-accused Gurdit Singh and
filing of supplementary challan, learned trial Court vide order dated
18.10.2023 observed that charge is required to be re-framed; hence, 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, Kapurthala has been wrongly declined vide
order dated 16.05.2022 (Annexure P-6). Learned 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 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 one more case
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052856
CRM-M-1310-2024 (O&M) -5-
(FIR No.127 dated 27.12.2021), however, he is on bail in the same. 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 while referring to the custody
certificate, it is conceded that petitioner has undergone actual custody in the
instant case for a period of two years, one month and five days
(as on 18.04.2024). It is also conceded by learned State counsel that
investigation in the case is complete, challan stands already presented and as
per order dated 18.10.2023, charges are to be re-framed.
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
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 as well as custody certificate of the petitioner.
11. In the instant case, the petitioner was not arrested at the spot but
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052856
CRM-M-1310-2024 (O&M) -6-
was apprehended subsequently. Petitioner has undergone actual custody
in the instant case for a period of two years, one month and five days
(as on 18.04.2024). The ingredients of the offence alleged against the
petitioner are yet to be proved before the trial Court by prosecution.
Investigation in the case is complete, challan stands presented before the
trial Court and although initially charges were framed, however as per order
dated 18.10.2023, on account of arrest of co-accused Gurdit Singh and filing
of supplementary challan, charges are to be re-framed. Therefore, this Court
has reason to believe that the trial in this case is likely to take some time to
conclude.
12. 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.
13. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Dataram Singh v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Anr.", 2018(2) RCR (Criminal) 131, has held that
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052856
CRM-M-1310-2024 (O&M) -7-
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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
Pertinently, appropriate directions can be issued for securing the
attendance of the petitioner during the trial.
16. Therefore, as regards the apprehension expressed by learned
State counsel that the petitioner may influence the witnesses or may even
abscond in order to delay the trial, it is observed that in the event of any such
conduct, the prosecution can always approach the competent Court for
cancellation of bail. Accordingly, 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.
17. In view of the above discussion and in the light of judgment in
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:052856
CRM-M-1310-2024 (O&M) -8-
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 first Monday of every month till the conclusion of trial.
18. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall
prepare a Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.
19. 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.
20. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
21. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
19.04.2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
Apurva JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
8 of 8
