Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gabbar Singh Alias Gabbar vs State Of Punjab on 29 April, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057987
CRM-M-19680-2024 (O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:057987
216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-19680-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 29.04.2024
Gabbar Singh @ Gabbar
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. R.K. Kachura, 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. 48 dated 17.03.2022, under Section 15 of NDPS Act (Section 25 of
NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station Guruharsahai,
District Ferozepur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
is in custody for 2 years and 1 month and as per the allegations, there was a
recovery of 70 kgs. of poppy husk from the truck wherein the petitioner
and the other co-accused were also travelling and as per the allegations, the
petitioner was the driver of the truck. He further submitted that the petitioner
is not involved in any other case and has got clean antecedents and the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057987
CRM-M-19680-2024 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:057987
aforesaid alleged recovery was marginally higher than the commercial
quantity as defined under the NDPS Act. He submitted that he has already
faced incarceration for 2 years and 1 month and charges in the present case
were framed by the learned trial Court on 01.10.2022 which is more than 1
year and 6 months ago and till date only three prosecution witnesses have
been examined. He submitted that considering his total custody of 2 years
and 1 month, he may be considered for grant of regular bail. He also
referred to 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 v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC
Online SC 918 and Rabi Prakash Versus State of Odisha, Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No.4169 of 2023 in this regard.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab
has submitted that so far as the custody of the petitioner is concerned, the
same is correct and it is also correct that the petitioner is having clean
antecedents and he is not involved in any other case. He submitted that since
the recovery falls in the category of commercial quantity, the prayer of the
petitioner is hit by the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. It is a case where the petitioner has already faced incarceration
for 2 years and 1 month. The alleged recovery in the present case is stated
to be 70 kgs. of poppy husk which is marginally higher than the commercial
quantity as defined under the NDPS Act and the recovery is stated to be
from the truck of which the petitioner is stated to be the driver. The
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057987
CRM-M-19680-2024 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:057987
petitioner is stated to be having clean antecedents and is not involved in any
other case. As per learned counsel for the parties, three prosecution
witnesses have already been examined. This Court is of the view that
considering the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as aforesaid and
considering the custody of the petitioner, clean antecedents of the petitioner
and the stage of the trial, the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS
Act will not apply to the petitioners in the light of Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
6. Therefore, considering the totality and circumstances of the
present case, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the
petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The
petitioner shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail
bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned.
8. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as
an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose
of deciding the present petition only.
29.04.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh JUDGE
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
