Jagraj Singh Alias Gaji vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 13438 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagraj Singh Alias Gaji vs State Of Punjab on 2 August, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099005




CRM-M-36093-2024                                               -1-

     (232) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                                        CRM-M-36093-2024
                                                  Date of Decision: 02.08.2024

JAGRAJ SINGH @ GAJI
                                                                     ... Petitioner

                                        Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                 ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

          Mr. Prabhdeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.
                     ****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in this 4th petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the

grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.244 dated 02.10.2021 registered

under Section 21 NDPS Act (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) at

Police Station City South, Moga, District Moga.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Dharampal Singh @ Dharna

(granted bail vide order dated 20.12.2023 passed in CRM-M-63114-2023)

and his co-accused Jugraj Singh @ Gaji (petitioner) came to be apprehended

with 300 grams of heroin.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There was violation

of mandatory provisions of the Act regarding search and seizure including

Sections 42 and 50. The petitioner was in custody since 02.10.2021 and only

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099005

01 out of the 16 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. Therefore,

the Trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In

one other case registered against the petitioner FIR No.21 dated 06.02.2024,

U/s 21, 25-61-85 NDPS Act, P.S. Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana, he is on

bail. He, therefore, prays that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of

West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order

dated 04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and

Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.

(s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated

29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023, the

petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the

petitioner is an accused in one other case under the NDPS Act. Therefore, he

was not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the

petitioner was in custody since 02.10.2021 and only 01 out of the 16

prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and in one other case

registered against him, he had been granted the concession of bail. The copy

of the order dated 30.05.2024 is marked as X.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @

Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on

01.08.2022 held as under:-

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099005

"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.

During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

7. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,

SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

"1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave Petition, who were accused of committing an offence under

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099005

Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS Act') in FIR No.18/2022, dated 09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.

2. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners. They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and four months.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession of bail granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099005

7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

(emphasis supplied)

8. Admittedly, in 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan' (supra) and

'Hasanujjaman & others' (supra), the accused therein had been granted the

concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone

approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time

offenders as is borne out from the orders.

9. In the present case, the petitioner has undergone more than two

and a half years of custody. In the one other case registered against him, he

has been granted the concession of bail. In view of the fact that the petitioner

has undergone a substantial period of custody, the rigors of Section 37 of the

NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of

Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a

speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of

bail.

10. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Jagraj Singh @ Gaji son of Binder

Singh is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:099005

and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate,

concerned.

11. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned

on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform

in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the

cases mentioned in this order.

12. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare

an FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial

Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the

absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

13. The petition stands disposed of.

                                                      (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
                                                           JUDGE

02.08.2024
JITESH              Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
                    Whether reportable:-      Yes/No




                                 6 of 6