Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abbas Ali vs State Of Haryana on 16 January, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005570
CRM-M-16109-2022 #1# 2024:PHHC:005570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-16109-2022
Date of Decision:-16.01.2024
Abbas Ali.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Haryana.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Mazlish Khan, Advocate with
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate &
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Gagandeep S. Chhina, Assistant Advocate General,
Haryana.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The Prayer in this petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is for the
grant of regular bail in case FIR No.161 dated 05.07.2020 under Sections 20,
29 (added later on) of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 120-B IPC deleted later
on) registered at Police Station Pnangwan, District Nuh (Haryana).
2. The brief facts of the case are that secret information was
received that Shabbir @ Habib @ Habbi son of Dinu, Sahil son of Abbas
and Abbas son of Din Mohd. were indulging in the business of selling Ganja
and would be coming in their vehicle bearing registration number RJ 14 GJ-
5944 carrying Ganja in plastic gunny bags. Shabbir @ Habib @ Habbi
would be the driver and Sahil would be the conductor. If a barricade was set
up the driver and the truck could be apprehended.
Based on the aforesaid information the truck was stopped.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005570
CRM-M-16109-2022 #2# 2024:PHHC:005570
Accused Sahil was apprehended but co-accused jumped from the truck and
absconded. The search of the truck revealed 822 Kgs 350 grams of Ganja.
During the course of the investigation the accused made a disclosure
statement about the involvement of Shabbir and Abbas (petitioner). He
disclosed that the Ganja had been purchased from the District Raigarh,
Chattisgarh. The Aadhaar Card of accused Shabbir was found in the vehilce
and the registration certificate of the vehicle was found to be in the name of
petitioner-Abbas.
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
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
21.10.2021 and only 10 out of 24 prosecution witnesses had been examined
so far, the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime
soon and therefore, he was 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, more so when his co-accused Shabbir has been
granted the concession of anticipatory bail and Sahil has been granted the
concession of default bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that
commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005570
CRM-M-16109-2022 #3# 2024:PHHC:005570
Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes
that the petitioner was a first time offender, in custody since 21.10.2021 and
only 10 out of the 24 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and
that 02 co-accused had been granted the concession of either anticipatory or
default bail.
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:-
"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.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005570
CRM-M-16109-2022 #4# 2024:PHHC:005570
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
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.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005570
CRM-M-16109-2022 #5# 2024:PHHC:005570
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
21.10.2021 and only 10 out of 24 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, moreso as 02
co-accused have already been granted the concession of either anticipatory
or default bail.
9. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Abbas Ali son of Sh. Deen
Mohammad 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005570
CRM-M-16109-2022 #6# 2024:PHHC:005570
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 )
JUDGE
January 16, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:005570
6 of 6
