Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ruldu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055431
CRM-M-18740-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:055431
209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18740-2024
Date of decision: 24.04.2024
RULDU SINGH
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Abhinav Prashar, Advocate and
Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, 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.81 dated 23.06.2022, under Section 22 of the NDPS Act (Section 29 of the
NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh,
District Malerkotla, Sangrur, Punjab.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody for about 1 year and 10 months and charges in
the present case were framed by the learned trial Court on 21.09.2022 and till
date only two prosecution witnesses have been examined by the prosecution
despite the fact that charges were framed about 1 year and 7 months ago. He
further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner was with regard to
recovery of 44.4 grams of Buprenorphine, which is about double the prescribed
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055431
2024:PHHC:055431
limit of commercial quantity under the NDPS Act i.e. 20 grams of
Buprenorphine. He further submitted that although the earlier bail petition filed
by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 22.11.2023, which is almost
five months ago but the trial is not progressing and he has to face further
incarceration for no fault of his. He also submitted that although the petitioner
is involved in two more cases under the NDPS Act but in one case he has
already undergone and considering the facts and circumstances, the bar
contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner in
view 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.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab
submitted on instructions from ASI Narinder Kumar that it is correct that the
petitioner is in custody for about 1 year and 10 months and after the framing of
the charges by the learned trial Court on 21.09.2022, only two prosecution
witnesses have been examined, out of which one was the person who had
deposited the sample and another was the Investigating Officer. He further
submitted that as of today, the petitioner is involved in one more case under the
NDPS Act and two cases under the Excise Act.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is a case where the custody of the petitioner comes out to be
about 1 year and 10 months and charges were framed by the learned trial Court
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055431
2024:PHHC:055431
on 21.09.2022, which is almost 1 year and 7 months ago but as per the learned
counsel for the parties, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined till
date. The commercial quantity prescribed under the NDPS Act is 20 grams of
Buprenorphine and in the present case, the recovery was 44.4 grams of
Buprenorphine, which falls in the category of commercial quantity. However,
the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act has to be considered in the
light of the facts and circumstances of each and every case. 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 21.09.2022, which is about 1 year and 7 months
ago, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined, to which he could not
offer any explanation. Apart from the above, although the earlier bail petition
filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 22.11.2023 but now the
custody of the petitioner has increased and therefore, the second successive bail
petition would be maintainable.
6. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the bar
contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner in
the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also in the light of the
aforesaid judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Furthermore, it is not the case
of the learned State counsel that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then
he may influence any witness or may tamper with evidence or may flee from
justice.
7. 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.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055431
2024:PHHC:055431
8. 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
4 of 4
