Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Singh @ Sonu vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055603
CRM-M-10414-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:055603
208
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-10414-2024
Date of decision: 24.04.2024
SURINDER SINGH @ SONU
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Ruhani Chadha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.323 dated 09.11.2020, under Sections 22-C and 29 of the NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station Kathu Nangal, District Amritsar, Punjab.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in
custody for 3 years and 3 months and he is not involved in any other case under
the NDPS Act and he has been falsely implicated by the police in the present
case. He further submitted that it is a case where the police had apprehended
two co-accused, namely, Gursahib Singh and Avtar Singh and from them there
was a recovery of 11,400 intoxicant tablets and 10,200 intoxicant tablets,
respectively, and both the aforesaid co-accused, who were apprehended along
with the aforesaid contraband have already been released on default bail under
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055603
2024:PHHC:055603
Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. He further submitted that thereafter, one of the aforesaid
co-accused, namely, Gursahib Singh from whom aforesaid recovery was
effected disclosed the name of one co-accused, namely, Sanjeev Kumar @ Raja
and three more co-accused and it was thereafter, on the basis of disclosure
statement of other co-accused, who was already nominated on the basis of
disclosure statement that the name of the present petitioner has cropped up and
in this way, the name of the petitioner was nominated on the basis of second
disclosure statement.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been no
recovery from the petitioner and there is no other material available with the
prosecution to connect the petitioner with the present offence. In this regard, he
referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus
State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (4) SCC 1 to contend that in the absence of any
other connecting material, the disclosure statement of a co-accused is not
admissible in evidence. He referred to Annexure P-9 and Annexure P-10,
whereby the other co-accused, namely, Navjot Singh @ Nav and Dilpreet Singh
have been extended the benefit of regular bail by this Court and by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court, respectively. While referring to Annexure P-9, he
submitted that one of the co-accused, namely, Navjot Singh @ Nav was also
nominated on the basis of disclosure statement and he has been extended the
benefit of regular bail by this Court on the ground that his name cropped up on
the basis of nomination by way of a disclosure statement of co-accused. While
further referring to Annexure P-9, he submitted that at that point of time when
the concession of regular bail was granted to the aforesaid co-accused on
11.01.2024, only one prosecution witness was examined and charges had been
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055603
2024:PHHC:055603
framed on 06.06.2022 and in view of the large delay even after the framing of
the charges that only one prosecution witness was examined, this Court had also
considered the effect of the long custody on the basis of stage of the trial and in
the light of the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil
versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another, [2022 (10) SCC 51],
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain versus State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 AIR (SC) 1648,
Dheeraj Kumar Shukla versus The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online
SC 918 and Rabi Prakash versus The State of Odisha, Special Leave to
Appeal (Criminal) No.4169 of 2023 and therefore, the aforesaid co-accused
was extended the benefit of regular bail by this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that more than
three months have elapsed after the enlargement of aforesaid co-accused,
namely, Navjot Singh @ Nav on regular bail that the stage of the trial remains
the same and still only one prosecution witness has been examined and in this
way, after the framing of charges on 06.06.2022, more than 1 year and 10
months have elapsed that only one prosecution witness has been examined. He
further submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the
petitioner was also at parity with the aforesaid co-accused, namely, Navjot
Singh @ Nav. Further referring to Annexure P-10, he also submitted that one of
the co-accused, namely, Dilpreet Singh, who was also apprehended along with
the petitioner has already been extended the benefit of regular bail by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.02.2024. He further submitted that in
view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the bar contained under Section
37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner especially considering the
custody and also the fact that there has been no recovery from the petitioner.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055603
2024:PHHC:055603
5. On the other hand, Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab
submitted that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody for 3 years and 3
months after the framing of the charges by the learned trial Court on
06.06.2022, only one prosecution witness has been examined. He further
submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case under the NDPS
Act but he is involved in two more cases. So far as the parity of the petitioner
with the aforesaid co-accused, who have already been granted the benefit of
regular bail vide Anneuxre P-9 and Annexure P-10 is concerned, he does not
dispute the same.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The petitioner is in custody for 3 years and 3 months and he is not
involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. The charges were framed by
the learned trial Court on 06.06.2022 and only one prosecution witness has been
examined till date despite the framing of charges more than 1 year and 10
months ago. During the course of arguments, on a query being raised to the
learned State counsel as to what is the justification as to why after the framing
of the charges on 06.06.2022, which is more than 1 year and 10 months ago,
only one prosecution witnesses have been examined, to which he could not
offer any explanation. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is
also at parity with the aforesaid co-accused, who have already been extended
the benefit of regular bail by this Court vide Annexure P-9 and Annexure P-10.
8. Therefore, considering the total custody of the petitioner, his
antecedents, stage of the trial, parity of the petitioner with the aforesaid
co-accused and also that no recovery was effected from the petitioner, the bar
contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner in
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055603
2024:PHHC:055603
the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, in the light of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and also in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall
be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, subject to
furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
10. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of
deciding the present petition only.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
24.04.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
