Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravjeet Kaur @ Rubi vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035561
CRM-M-56880-2023 -1-
2024:PHHC:035561
206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-56880-2023
Date of decision: 13.03.2024
RAVJEET KAUR @ RUBI
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Rajwant Singh Chahal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.201 dated 24.08.2022, under Sections 21/22/29/61/85 of the NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station Dharamkot, District Moga, Punjab.
2. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner
submitted that the petitioner is a lady of the age of 26 years and she is having
two minor children and in the present case, her name was nominated on the
basis of disclosure statement of co-accused, namely, Jagjit Singh @ Ravi from
whom there was an alleged recovery of 4 grams of heroin and 200 intoxicant
tablets of Etizola. He further submitted that the present case was planted upon
the petitioner because of political enmity and thereafter, the allegations against
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035561
2024:PHHC:035561
the petitioner were that after her name was nominated on the basis of disclosure
statement of aforesaid co-accused, there had been a recovery of 3 grams of
heroin and 110 intoxicant tablets of Etizola from her, which although falls in the
category of commercial quantity but since the present case was planted upon
the petitioner and the fact that qua the petitioner, the charges were framed on
23.02.2023 and only one recovery witness has been examined and only 3
witnesses have been examined out of total cited 16 prosecution witnesses, the
bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner
considering the custody of the petitioner, which is more than 1 year and 6
months and the petitioner being a lady of the age of 26 years and having two
minor children. He further submitted that apart from the above, the petitioner is
not involved in any other case except for one case under Section 323 of the IPC
and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, she
may be considered for the grant of regular bail. He has referred to a judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau
of Investigation and another, [2022 (10) SCC 51] and contended that when
there is a long custody, which is not attributable to the accused and the delay
has been caused by the prosecution, then Rights under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India are effected. He also referred to another judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain versus State (NCT of
Delhi)", 2023 AIR (SC) 1648, wherein the scope of Section 37 of the NDPS
Act vis-a-vis Article 21 of the Constitution of India has been discussed by
taking a serious view with regard to long trial.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab
submitted that the petitioner is in custody for more than 1 year and 6 months
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035561
2024:PHHC:035561
and the name of the petitioner had cropped up on the basis of disclosure
statement of aforesaid co-accused, namely, Jagjit Singh @ Ravi but afterwards,
there had been recovery of 110 intoxicant tablets of Etizola from the petitioner,
which falls in the commercial quantity and therefore, the bar contained under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act will apply to the petitioner. He further submitted on
instructions from ASI Jaswinder Singh that so far as the antecedents of the
petitioner are concerned, she is not involved in any other case under the NDPS
Act but she is involved in one more case under Section 323 of the IPC. He also
submitted that only 3 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date
although the charges qua the petitioner were framed by the learned trial Court
on 23.02.2023.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is a case where the petitioner is a lady of the age of 26 years
having two minor children and she has already faced incarceration for more
than 1 year and 6 months. Even otherwise also, the petitioner is stated to be
having clean antecedents and not involved in any other case under the NDPS
Act or under any other provision except for one case under Section 323 of the
IPC. The name of the petitioner was nominated in the present case on the basis
of disclosure statement of aforesaid co-accused. It is the case of the learned
Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that so far as the recovery
which was allegedly effected from the petitioner is concerned, the same was
planted upon the petitioner. Till date only 3 prosecution witnesses have been
examined despite the fact that more than 1 year has elapsed after the framing of
the charges on 28.02.2023.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035561
2024:PHHC:035561
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case (supra)
has discussed this serious issue with regard to delay in trial and its effect on the
Right to Life of an individual under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Para
49 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"49. Sub-section (1) mandates courts to continue the
proceedings on a day-to-day basis till the completion of the
evidence. Therefore, once a trial starts, it should reach the
logical end. Various directions have been issued by this
Court not to give unnecessary adjournments resulting in the
witnesses being won over. However, the non-compliance of
Section 309 continues with gay abandon. Perhaps courts
alone cannot be faulted as there are multiple reasons that
lead to such adjournments. Though the section makes
adjournments and that too not for a longer time period as an
exception, they become the norm.
We are touching upon this provision only to show that any
delay on the part of the court or the prosecution would
certainly violate Article 21. This is more so when the
accused person is under incarceration. This provision must
be applied inuring to the benefit of the accused while
considering the application for bail. Whatever may be the
nature of the offence, a prolonged trial, appeal or a revision
against an accused or a convict under custody or
incarceration, would be violative of Article 21. While the
courts will have to endeavour to complete at least the
recording of the evidence of the private witnesses, as
indicated by this Court on quite a few occasions, they shall
make sure that the accused does not suffer for the delay
occasioned due to no fault of his own".
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain's case
(supra) has dealt with this issue regarding delay in trial and long custody of the
accused person vis-a-vis the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment contained in para Nos.19 and 20
are reproduced as under:-
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035561
2024:PHHC:035561
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. Rattan Malik). 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.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
view that considering the aforesaid totality and circumstances of the present
case i.e., the fact that the petitioner is a lady of the age of 26 years having two
minor children, the name of the petitioner was nominated on the basis of
disclosure statement of aforesaid co-accused, the custody of the petitioner and
the stage of the trial, the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035561
2024:PHHC:035561
not apply to the petitioner in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and also in the light of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
9. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall
be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, subject to
furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
10. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of
deciding the present petition only.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
13.03.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035561
6 of 6
