Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pardeep Kumar Alias Rammi vs State Of Punjab on 8 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001284
CRM-M-17610-2023 -1- 2024:PHHC:001284
225 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-17610-2023
Date of Decision: 08.01.2024
Pardeep Kumar alias Rammi ...Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.S.Shekhawat
Present : Mr.L.M.Gulati, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. I.P.S. Sabharwal, DAG, Punjab.
***
N.S.Shekhawat J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 439
Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail to him in case FIR No. 150 dated 27.08.2022
registered under Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act
added subsequently), at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 27.08.2022, when police
party was on patrolling duty, a Scooty of black colour, which was being driven
by a youngman and a lady sitting on pillion, was signalled to stop. On seeing
the police party, the driver of the Scooty suddenly turned back and therefore, on
the basis of the suspicion, they were stopped. On asking them, the youngman
disclosed his name as Pardeep Kumar and the lady disclosed her name as Ashu
Jain, wife of the petitioner. On their search, 266 grams of heroin and
Rs.24,000/- of drug money were found in conscious possession of them.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the present case,
the petitioner has been falsely involved by the police. He further contends that
the petitioner was arrested in the present case on 27.08.2022. He further
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001284
CRM-M-17610-2023 -2- 2024:PHHC:001284
contends that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Ashu has already been granted
the concession of regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-52500-2022 on 17.02.2023
(Annexure P-2). Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed relied upon
judgments passed in (i) CRM-M-37684-2021, Balwinder Singh vs. State of
Punjab, decided on 14.02.2022; (ii) CRM-M-8212-2022, Tajinder Singh vs. State
of Punjab, decided on 03.03.2022 and (iii) CRM-M-35186-2016, Manjit Kaur @
Jeeto vs. State of Punjab, decided on 01.12.2016 to contend that the quantity of
contraband recovered from the present petitioner is marginally above 'the
commercial quantity' and in view of the fact that the petitioner has undergone such
a long period for incarceration, he is entitled for bail.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed
the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the
rigors of Section 37 of the Act would apply to the facts of the present case and the
petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, custody
period of the petitioner and also the fact that the quantity of alleged contraband is
marginally above the 'commercial quantity', but without commenting on merits of
the case, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of
regular bail. Therefore, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail on furnishing of bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.
(N.S.SHEKHAWAT)
08.01.2024 JUDGE
hemlata
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:001284
2 of 2
