Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh vs Union Territory Chandigarh on 3 July, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082249
216
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-21818-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 03.07.2024
GURPREET SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Sunil Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr.Manish Bansal, PP, UT Chandigarh with
Ms. Diksha Sharma, Advocate with IO Hira Singh.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,
has been invoked for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No. 82, dated 13.12.2023, under Section 21 (Section 22 added later on)
of The Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
registered at Police Station Sector-49, District Chandigarh.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
alleged recovery made was 53.04 Grams of Heroin was non-
commercial in nature. He further refers to the FSL report dated
1.2.2024 which shows that there are six salts present in the contraband
but percentage of the same has not been reflected in it. He also points
out to the finding recorded by the Trial Court to the effect that 53.04
grams will have to be treated as commercial quantity since the salt
Racemethorphan would be commercial over and above 50 grams
asserting that in the FSL report there is no reference to the percentage
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082249
of the salts which are six in number and as such the total quantity
cannot be ascertained with specific measurement and hence, the same
cannot be held against the present accused to say that it is commercial
in nature.
3. Learned counsel for UT Chandigarh has filed the custody
certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to
which, the petitioner is behind bars for last 6 months and 21 days who
is not involved in any other case. He has relied upon the judgment of
the Division Bench of this Court passed in 'Anup Gupta vs. State of
Punjab' decided on 07.05.2008 reported as '2008(4) RCR (Criminal)
390' to say that six salts are found to be present in the FSL report from
the sample of contraband collectively if taken together crosses mark of
the commercial quantity, the same will be considered to be commercial
in nature, therefore, in the present case the petitioner does not deserve
the concession of bail.
4. Be that as it may, having perused the FSL Report with the
assistance of the learned State Counsel wherein the detected substances
to be six in number are mentioned below :-
i. Diacetylmorphine (Heroin) (Sr. No. 56)
ii. 6-Monoacetylmorphine (" Sr. No. 93)
iii. 3-Monoacetylmorphine (* Sr. No.93)
iv. Acetylcodein (Sr. No.93),
v. Racemethorphan ("Sr. No. 115)
vi. Tramadol (* Sr. No. 238ZH)
5. But the percentage/quantity has not been ascertained as
per the ratio of the sample collected and examined by the FSL in its
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082249
report and therefore, by mere mentioning that there are 6 salts
involved, the same are commercial in nature having crossed the mark
of 50 grams is not correct.
6. Even other wise in the instant case, investigation is
complete, charges framed on 30.03.2024, out of total 15 prosecution
witnesses, none has been examined so far, meaning thereby trial will
take long time and in such a case where the quantity even if taken to be
53.04 grams, is marginally over and above the commercial quantity
though the same is also not a conclusive measurement in the light of
the FSL report being silent on the percentage of salts involved.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties,
this Court is of the considered view that as per the principle of the
criminal jurisprudence, no one should be considered as guilty till the
guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt and detaining the petitioner
behind the bars for an indefinite period would amount to violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is against the principle "Bail
is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgement of Apex
Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another;,
(2018) 3 SCC 22".
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing
bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty
Magistrate, concerned.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:082249
9. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
10. Petition is allowed in above terms.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
03.07.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
