Punjab-Haryana High Court
Labh Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 July, 2024
CRM-M-8674-2024 -1-
217
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M- 8674-2024
Date of Decision: 03.07.2024
Labh Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Nirmaljeet Singh Diwana, Senior DAG, Punjab.
*****
HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL)
1. This is third petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure on behalf of petitioner (Labh Singh) for grant of regular
bail in case bearing FIR No.103 dated 10.07.2022, under Section 22(c) and
22(a) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short
'the N.D.P.S. Act'), (Challan presented under Sections 22A/22C/29 of the
N.D.P.S. Act), registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar
Sahib.
authenticity of this document/judgment
The first petition (CRM-M-57708-2022) was dismissed
as withdrawn vide order dated 16.01.2023 and second petition
(CRM-M-8155-2023) was dismissed by this Court vide order dated
07.08.2023 (Annexure P-9).
3. In pursuance of advance notice served upon the State of Punjab,
status report by way of affidavit dated 29.04.2024 of Mr. Jasbir Singh,
P.P.S., Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Gidderbaha, District
Sri Muktsar Sahib has been filed on behalf of State of Punjab, which is
already on record.
4. Custody certificate dated 01.07.2024 of the petitioner is filed by
learned State counsel in Court today, which is taken on record, subject to all
just exceptions.
5. Briefly, the aforesaid case FIR was registered on the basis of
ruqa sent by Sub Inspector Gurlal Singh, Police Station Gidderbaha,
wherein, it is stated that on 10.07.2022, he, along with other fellow
employees, was present in the police station when one written information
was received from Assistant Sub Inspector Raghbir Singh, who had stated
that while he (Assistant Sub Inspector Raghbir Singh), along with fellow
employees, was present near the park of Village Gidderbaha, in a private
vehicle for patrolling and checking of suspects, then on account of the street
being congested, they parked the car near the park and were going on foot in
the street; and from the opposite side, one man and a woman, who were
holding one polythene bag each in their hands, upon seeing the police party,
threw the said polythene bags held in their hands and turned back, however,
they were apprehended by the police party on the basis of suspicion. Upon
HIMANI GUPTA
2024.07.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and enquiring about their particulars, the man is stated to have told his name as
authenticity of this document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
Labh Singh (petitioner) and the woman told her name as Parwinder Kaur @
Beant Kaur wife of Labh Singh. Both of them were stated to be husband and
wife. It is stated in the ruqa that when Assistant Sub Inspector Raghbir
Singh went near the transparent polythene bags thrown by the aforesaid
apprehended persons then from both the bags, strips of medicines were
clearly visible. After following the due process, the search was conducted.
From the transparent polythene bag thrown by Parwinder Kaur, three strips
(each containing 15 tablets) and one trimmed strip, containing 5 tablets, thus
total 50 tablets; mark Etizolam Tablets IP Etizola 0.5, whose batch number is
B.No.KEC 2202 A, MFG 03/2022, Exp. 02/2025, were recovered. Similarly
from the transparent polythene bag thrown by Labh Singh (petitioner), six
strips (in each strip 10/10 tablets), total 60 tablets; mark ALPRASAFE 0.5
Alprazolem tablets IP 0.5 mg, whose batch number is PCCAA 691, MFG
DATE 07/2020, EXPIRY DATE 06/2023, were recovered. The personal
search of Parwinder Kaur was conducted through lady Constable Lovepreet
Kaur; however, no other intoxicating substance or objectionable articles
were found, apart from six notes of Rs.100/- (total Rs.600/-). From the
personal search of Labh Singh (petitioner), no other intoxicating substance
or objectionable article was found, except one note of Rs.100/-. Accordingly,
the petitioner, along with co-accused, was arrested.
6. As per status report, the samples of the recovered contraband
were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bathinda, for analysis;
whereupon, the report dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure R-1) was received. The
relevant extract thereof would read as under:-
authenticity of this document/judgment
"6. Articles received : Two parcels marked as 1 and 2 in
the laboratory. Parcel 1 was alleged to be seized from S/v
Parwinder Kaur and parcel 2 was alleged to be seized
from S/v Labh Singh. Each parcel was sealed with one seal
of AK and alleged to contain intoxicating tablets.
Seal on the parcel was found intact and tallied with the
specimen seal impression.
On opening the parcels 1 and 2 were found to contain the
following:
Parcel 1 : Fifteen (15) white coloured tablets in a strip
labelled as Etizola 0.5 Etizolam tablets IP bearing Batch
No.KE2202A, Mfg. 03/2022, Exp. 02/2025.
Avg. weight : 56.97 mg./tablet
Parcel 2 : Twenty (20) peach coloured tablets in two
strips, each strip labelled as Alprasafe 0.5, Alprazolam
tablets IP 0.5 mg. bearing Batch No.PCCAA691 Mfg.
Avg. 124.63 tablet
7. Purpose of reference : Analysis and report
8. Identification & Tests :
Ingredient Average quantity of ingredient
present present in parcels
Parcel 1 Parcel 2
Etizolam 0.49 mg./tablet
Alprazolam 0.48 mg./tablet
REPORT
The tablets contained in the parcels 1 and 2 under
reference have been analysed separately by the chemical,
TLC and instrumental analysis. On the basis of analysis,
the ingredients alongwith their quantities found present in
parcels 1 and 2 have been given at Sr.No.8 (identification
and tests) of this report."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. Learned
counsel inter alia submits that the petitioner and his wife (co-accused) are
authenticity of this document/judgment
having three children (two sons and one daughter), out of which, the elder
son is a drug addict and other two children are minors; and with the arrest of
the petitioner as well as his wife, there is no one to look after the minor
children.
7.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act have not been complied with and a joint
Recovery Memo has wrongly been prepared in this case. It is submitted that
in case the recovery allegedly effected from the petitioner alone is seen then
the same falls in the category of "Intermediate Quantity".
7.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was arrested in the instant case on 10.07.2022; and apart from this case, he is
not involved in any other case under the N.D.P.S. Act. It is stated that the
petitioner has already undergone actual custody in this case for a period of
one year, eleven months and eighteen days (as on 01.07.2024); investigation
in the case is complete, challan stands presented on 16.11.2022, charges
have also been framed on 09.01.2023 and out of total thirteen prosecution
witnesses, only one prosecution witness has been examined by now; thus,
the trial is likely to take some time to conclude and no useful purpose would
be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period. It is
further contended that the petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions as
may be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court. Learned counsel submits
that the petitioner is also ready to furnish security in the form of Fixed
Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) of Rs.50,000/- before the concerned Court, so as to
ensure his presence before the Court on each and every date of hearing.
HIMANI GUPTA
2024.07.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and 7.3.
authenticity of this document/judgment
With the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the
High Court, Chandigarh
petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of
petitioner for grant of regular bail on the ground of seriousness and gravity
of the offence. It is submitted that the recovered contraband in the instant
case falls under the category of 'commercial quantity' and thus, rigors of
Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are attracted in this case. Learned State
counsel further states that there is an apprehension that in the event of grant
of bail, the petitioner may abscond to delay the trial. Accordingly, prayer has
been made for dismissal of the present petition.
8.1 However while referring to the custody certificate, it is
conceded by learned State counsel that petitioner has undergone actual
custody in the instant case for a period of one year, eleven months and
eighteen days (as on 01.07.2024) and he is not involved in any other case.
Learned State counsel further concedes that investigation in the case is
complete, challan stands presented and charges have also been framed; and
out of total thirteen prosecution witnesses, only one prosecution witness has
been examined by now.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
paper book as well as the status report and custody certificate of the
petitioner.
10. In the instant case, the petitioner has undergone actual
custody for a period of one year, eleven months and eighteen days
(as on 01.07.2024). Investigation in the case is complete, challan stands
presented on 16.11.2022 and charges have been framed on 09.01.2023. The
HIMANI GUPTA
2024.07.05 18:41
I attest to the accuracy and second petition filed by petitioner seeking regular bail was dismissed by this
authenticity of this document/judgment
High Court, Chandigarh
Court on 07.08.2023, i.e. almost one year ago, and out of total thirteen
prosecution witnesses, only one prosecution witness has been examined by
now; therefore, this Court has reason to believe that the trial in this case is
likely to take some time to conclude.
11. In a recent decision, while considering the bail under the
N.D.P.S. Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain V.
State (NCT of Delhi)", 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 1648 held as under:
"19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions
under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that
the accused is not guilty and would not commit any
offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether,
resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive
detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which
such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be
considered within constitutional parameters is where the
court is reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the
material on record (whenever the bail application is made)
that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation,
would result in complete denial of the bail to a person
accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37
of the NDPS Act.
20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where
the court would look at the material in a broad manner,
and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt may be
proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore,
emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected
to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only
prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does
not call for meticulous examination of the materials
collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v.
authenticity of this document/judgment
Rattan Malik (2009) 2 SCC 624). Grant of bail on ground
of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by
Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A
which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too
(ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these
factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this
case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail."
12. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled "Umarmia Alias Mamumia
v. State of Gujarat", (2017) 2 SCC 731, has held delay in criminal trial to be
in violation of right guaranteed to an accused under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
13. In "Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta v. CBI", (2017) 5 SCC
218, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the
attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the
solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether
it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial.
Pertinently, appropriate directions can be issued for securing the
attendance of the petitioner during the trial.
14. As regards the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel
that the petitioner may abscond during trial or indulge in similar illegal
activities, the State/Prosecuting Agency/State police shall be at liberty to
observe the behaviour of the petitioner during the bail period, and in case it
feels that the petitioner is causing interference with the progress of trial or
indulging in similar illegal activities, it shall be open for the
State/Prosecuting Agency/State police to move to the trial Court for
cancellation of the bail, which shall be decided by the trial Court on its own
merits.
authenticity of this document/judgment
15. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances,
the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on
regular bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, the
concerned Station House Officer shall be informed about the release of
petitioner and the petitioner shall inform the concerned Station House
Officer about his address at which he intends to reside during the pendency
of case/trial and any change in the address shall be communicated to the
concerned Station House Officer, forthwith. The petitioner would also
furnish his telephone number to the concerned Station House Officer. He
would also furnish his undertaking to the effect that he will not indulge in
any illegal activity. The petitioner shall also mark his presence before the
concerned Police Station/Station House Officer on first Monday of every
month till the conclusion of trial and in case the Station House Officer
refuses to mark his presence, he is permitted to make an application before
the Illaqa Magistrate, concerned.
16. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall
prepare a Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and
submit the same with the trial Court. The same would be liable to be
forfeited as per law, in case the petitioner remains absent from trial without
any sufficient cause.
17. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed to be an
observation on merits of the case and the facts and circumstances recorded
above are only for consideration of the prayer for bail at this stage.
authenticity of this document/judgment
18. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
19. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
03.07.2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
Apurva JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
authenticity of this document/judgment
