Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shatrughan Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 25 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056704
Neutral Citation No.2024:PHHC:056704
S. No.214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-6685 of 2024
Date of Decision:25.04.2024
Shatrughan Kumar .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab .....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Sukhcharan Singh Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
By way of this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., petition-
er prays for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.28 dated 02.05.2022 regis-
tered under Section 22 (Act No.61 of 1985) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psy-
chotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `the NDPS Act') at Police Station
GRP Patiala, District Patiala.
This is his second petition before this Court for this purpose.
Earlier petition bearing CRM-M-56765 of 2022 filed by the petitioner was
dismissed on merits by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
28.08.2023, copy of which is Annexure P.4.
As per prosecution allegations, 40 vials of Cocrex of 100 ml
each; 60 vials of Onerex of 100 ml each; and 300 intoxicating tablets of Al-
prasafe 0.5 containing salt of Alprazolam were recovered from the posses-
sion of the petitioner on 02.05.2022. These were taken into possession and
after making necessary statutory compliance, the samples were got analysed
from the FSL. The samples of parcels No.1 and 2 qua Cocrex and Onerex
revealed the salt to be that of Codeine Phosphate; whereas the third parcel
consisting of tablets of Alprasafe was found to be that of Alprazolam. The
recovered quantity falls in the commercial category.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056704
CRM-M-6685 of 2024
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been falsely impli-
cated; that he is in custody for the last approximately two years; that he is the first
offender being not involved in any other case; that trial may take time to conclude
and so, he be allowed bail.
Learned counsel has specifically pointed out that at the time of dis-
missal of the earlier petition on 28.08.2023, two witnesses out of 11 cited by the
prosecution, had been examined and it was observed by this Court that remaining
witnesses shall be examined with due promptitude so as to complete the trial but
still no other witness has been examined further.
Learned State Counsel has opposed the bail petition by pointing out
that recovered quantity falls in the commercial category and so, Section 37 of the
NDPS Act bars grant of bail in such like cases. Learned State Counsel further
submits that the earlier bail petition was rejected by this Court after noticing that
huge quantity of different materials, all commercial individually, was recovered
from the petitioner. Prayer is made for rejecting the bail petition However, it is
conceded by learned State Counsel that out of 11 witnesses cited by the prosecu-
tion, only two have been examined till date, which was the position at the time of
dismissal of the earlier bail petition on 28.08.2023.
Heard.
The custody certificate as placed on record by the State Counsel
would reveal that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year 11 months and 27
days, i.e. almost two years. Custody certificate further reveals that the petitioner
is not involved in any other case. No doubt, that petitioner has been found to be in
possession of contraband of the commercial category and so rigors of Section 37
of the NDPS Act are required to be complied with but at the same time, the Court
Page No.2 out of 4 pages
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056704
CRM-M-6685 of 2024
cannot overlook the custody period of the petitioner which is now almost two
years and the fact that trial is not proceeding further as only two witnesses have
been examined till date out of 11 cited by the prosecution which was the position
even at the time of dismissal of the earlier bail petition by this Court on
28.08.2023 vide Annexure P.4. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-
2394 of 2023 titled "Mohd. Haleem Vs. State of Punjab", vide its order dated
20.12.2023 has referred to the few judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein
concession of bail has been granted solely on the basis of long custody, by draw-
ing a table. The said table reads as under:-
Case Number Date of Title of case Period which the
Decision accused had un-
dergone when
granted bail by
Hon'ble Supreme
Court
Criminal Appeal 07.02.2020 Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. 1 year and 7
No.245/2020 The State of West Bengal months
Criminal Appeal 12.10.2020 Amit Singh Moni Vs. State 2 years and 7
No.668/2020 of Himachal Pradesh months
Special Leave to 10.11.2021 Kulwant Singh Vs. The State More than 2 years
Appeal (Crl.) of Punjab
Special Leave to 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan 1 year and 7
Appeal (Crl.) Vs. The State of West Bengal months
Special Leave to 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. 1 year and 6
Appeal (Crl.) The State of West Bengal months
Criminal Appeal 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna Patra @ Go- 2 years 1 month
No.1169 of 2022 palrusma Vs. Union of India and 17 days
Special Leave to 22.08.2022 Mohammad Salman Hanif About 2 years
Appeal (Crl.) Shaikh Vs. The State of Gu-
No.5530 of 2022 jarat
Special Leave to 31.10.2022 Shahjad Vs. The State of Ut- About 2 years
Appeal (Crl.) tar Pradesh
Page No.3 out of 4 pages
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056704
CRM-M-6685 of 2024
Apart from above, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169
of 2023 decided on 13.07.2023 that in case of prolonged incarceration, the condi-
tional liberty will override the statutory embargo under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act as the prolonged incarceration is against fundamental right guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Having regard to the afore-said facts and circumstances, but without
commenting anything further on the merits of the case, present petition is allowed.
Petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate concerned, on usual terms and
conditions.
April 25, 2024 ( DEEPAK GUPTA )
renu JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Page No.4 out of 4 pages
4 of 4
