Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 25 January, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
2024:PHHC:010270
CRM-M-3057-2024 -1-
237 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-3057-2024
Date of Decision : January 25, 2024
Narinder Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is
for the grant of regular bail, in case FIR No.248 dated 30.07.2022 under
Section 22 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Derabassi, District
Mohali.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner-Narinder Singh came to
be apprehended with 528 capsules of Spasmo Proxyvon Plus, whereas
co-accused Jalaj Sharma was arrested with 720 capsules of Spasmo
Proxyvon Plus.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory
provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied
2024:PHHC:010270
with in their proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the
time of search and seizure. As he was a first-time offender, in custody since
30.07.2022 and only 01 out of the 10 prosecution witnesses had been
examined so far, besides, the trial of the present case was not likely to be
concluded anytime soon, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the concession of
bail 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.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that
commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner.
Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that
the petitioner was a first time offender, in custody since 30.07.2022 and only
01 out of the 10 prosecution witnesses had been examined.
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:-
2024:PHHC:010270
"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:-
2024:PHHC:010270
"1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave
Petition, who were accused of committing an
offence under 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; charge-sheet 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
2024:PHHC:010270
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.
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. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody
since 30.07.2022 and only 01 out of the 10 prosecution witnesses have been
examined so far. He is also a first-time offender with no other case
registered against him. In this situation, 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, more so when his co-accused has been granted the similar concession.
2024:PHHC:010270
9. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Narinder Singh son of Rajesh Kumar is
ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety
bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
10. 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
present case.
11. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare
an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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.
12. The petition stands disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
January 25, 2024 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
Whether reportable : YES / NO
