Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harjinder Singh @ Jinda vs State Of Punjab on 8 July, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
220
CRM-M-7214-2023
Date of decision: July 8th, 2024
Harjinder Singh @ Jinda
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Amit Rana, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section
439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case FIR No.112 dated
30.07.2022 under Sections 22(C), 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985, registered
at Police Station Jhabal, District Tarn Taran.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the
petitioner has been falsely framed in the instant case for having been
found in alleged possession of 1000 tablets of tramadol while he along
with the co-accused were riding a motorcycle. Learned counsel has
submitted that the petitioner has never been involved in any other case
under the NDPS Act, which further lends credence to his false
implication in the present case. It has also been submitted that after the
petitioner was arrested on 30.07.2022, challan was presented on
24.01.2023 and charges were thereafter framed on 25.10.2023, however,
till date, even though the trial Court had adjourned the case on as many
as eight different dates, the prosecution witnesses, who in the present
case are all officials, had not appeared to get their evidence recorded.
Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances, the possibility of the
trial concluding in the near future looks remote as 14 witness have been
cited by the prosecution. Learned counsel in support has placed reliance
upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla
Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP(Crl.) No.6690/2022), wherein in
identical circumstances, on account of the inordinate delay in the
conclusion of trial, Hon'ble the Supreme Court had extended the
concession of bail.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer
and submissions made by the counsel opposite, on instructions from HC
Satnam Singh, has not disputed the stage of trial and that the petitioner
has never been involved in any case under the NDPS Act. However, he
submits that the petitioner along with the co-accused were intercepted
on suspicion and thereafter, the alleged recoveries were affected from
him. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the next date
before the trial Court is 15.07.2024 when in all likelihood, some of the
14 prosecution witnesses would be examined.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material placed on record.
5. The petitioner has been in custody since 30.07.2022.
The trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's
case (supra) has observed as under:-
".... It is true that the quantity recovered from
the petitioner is commercial in nature and the
provisions of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily
be attracted. However, in the absence of criminal
antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in
custody for the last two and a half years, we are
satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act
can be dispensed with at this stage, more so when
the trial is yet to commence though the charges
have been framed."
7. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove,
this Court deems it appropriate to allow the instant petition by
dispensing with the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. Petitioner be
admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned. However, it is made clear that anything observed
hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the
merits of the case.
9. Needless to say, in case the petitioner misuses the
concession of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek
cancellation of the same.
July 8th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether reportable : No
