Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 15 January, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004921
2024:PHHC:004921
CRM-M-1007-2024 1
218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-1007-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 15.01.2024
GURMEET SINGH
...Petitioner
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Prabhjot Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. This is the first petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in the case bearing FIR No. 0034
dated 16.04.2023 registered under Section 15 of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 at Police Station Sadar Rajpura,
District Patiala (Punjab).
2. The present FIR was lodged on the allegations that on
16.4.2023, SI Gurmeet Singh, on receiving intimation from ASI Roshan
Kumar reached at main road, opposite Jashan Hotel, Village Uppalheri,
where, ASI Roshan Kumar has already stopped accused/petitioner
Gurmeet Singh and co-accused Maan Singh, who came there in truck
bearing No. NL02-L-0683. Thereafter, on checking of truck, from the
seats of said truck, two plastic bags containing 27 Kg each of Poppy
Husk i.e total 54 KG of Poppy Husk were recovered, which were taken
into police possession. The accused/petitioner was arrested on 16.4.2023
and since then petitioner is in custody. The said recovery of 54 KG of
Poppy Husk falls within the ambit of commercial quantity.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004921
2024:PHHC:004921
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
petitioner is behind the bars since 16.04.2023 and the contraband, which
is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner is 54 KG of Poppy
Husk, which is marginally higher than the commercial quantity i.e. 50
KG and it also includes the weight of two plastic bags. Trial of the case
is progressing at snail's pace. Learned counsel further relies upon
judgment passed by this Court in CRM-M-57485-2022 decided on
10.01.2023 titled as Ranjit Singh @ Ranjit Kumar Vs. State of Punjab
and CRM-M-21460-2022 decided on 08.02.2023 titled as Jagtar Singh
Vs. State of Punjab.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer for grant
of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the alleged contraband
recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner, falls within
the ambit of commercial quantity, as such, in view of the embargo
created by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner is not entitled to
the concession of regular bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner is
also involved in one more case under the NDPS Act. However, learned
State counsel on instructions from ASI Subhash Chand submits that the
petitioner, in the other case, under NDPS Act is on bail and the recovery
from the petitioner, in that case is less than the commercial quantity.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the records of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars
since 16.04.2023 and the contraband alleged to have been recovered
from the petitioner is marginally higher than the commercial quantity.
The trial of the case has not commenced as none out of 13 PWs, have
been examined so far. So further incarceration of the petitioner without
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004921
2024:PHHC:004921
there being the prospect of the conclusion of the trial in the near future,
would be violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial.
6. In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020(1) RCR
(Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P.
and Others 2012(2) SCC 382, the involvement of accused in other
criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of
bail.
7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and
petitioner- Gurmeet Singh is ordered to released on regular bail subject
to his furnishing requisite bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
the concerned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
8. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression
of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall
proceed without being prejudiced by observations of this Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
15.01.2024 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:004921
3 of 3
