Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh Alias Gopa vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037812
CRM-M-29183-2023 -1-
235
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-29183-2023
Date of Decision: 13.03.2024
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopa
..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER
Present: Mr. Nitin Meel, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankit Grewal, DAG, Punjab.
*****
HARSH BUNGER J.
1. This is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure on behalf of petitioner (Gurpreet Singh @ Gopa) for
grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.205 dated 22.10.2021, under
Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(hereinafter referred to as 'the N.D.P.S. Act'), registered at Police Station
Lalru, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali.
2. The first petition (CRM-M-52692-2022) was withdrawn
by learned counsel for the petitioner vide order dated 16.01.2023
(Annexure P-6).
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037812
3. In pursuance of an advance notice served upon the State of
Punjab, short reply by way of affidavit dated 19.02.2024 of Mr. Vaibhav
Chaudhary, I.P.S., Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Dera
Bassi, Tehsil Dera Bassi, District S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali has been filed on
behalf of State of Punjab, which is already on record.
4. Custody certificate dated 12.03.2024 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 a
ruqa prepared by Sub Inspector Hardeep Singh, who stated that when on
22.10.2021, he along with his fellow employees departed on a private
vehicle for patrolling and checking duty and laid barricades near Village
Jharmadi border then at about 5:40 P.M., a person (petitioner) was seen
coming from Ambala side with a bag on his shoulder, who, upon seeing the
police party, became nervous; however, he was apprehended by the police
party. Thereafter upon enquiry, the aforesaid person disclosed his name as
Gurpreet Singh @ Gopa (petitioner) s/o Bhupinder Singh.
6. After following the due procedure, the search of petitioner and
his pithoo bag was conducted, whereupon 475 strips, containing 60 tablets
each (total 28500 tablets) of LOMOTIL were recovered from the conscious
possession of petitioner, for which he could not produce any license or
permit. The recovered tablets were converted into parcel and sealed and
they were taken into police possession.
7. As per status report, the contraband recovered from the
conscious possession of petitioner is stated to be commercial in nature.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037812
innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is
submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the alleged crime and
alleged recovery in the instant case is planted one. Learned counsel for the
petitioner contends that even if the allegations levelled against the petitioner
in the instant case are taken to be true then also there had been
non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act; and all the
prosecution witnesses cited in the instant case are the interested witnesses;
and no private or independent witness was joined by the police.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned
Judge, Special Court, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali has wrongly dismissed the
application for regular bail filed on behalf of the petitioner vide order dated
01.04.2022. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not
involved in any other case and he has undergone actual custody in the
instant case for a period of two years, four months and nineteen days
(as on 12.03.2024); investigation in the case is complete, challan stands
presented on 31.03.2022 and charges have been framed on 19.05.2022. It is
stated that out of the total eleven prosecution witnesses, only two
prosecution witness have been examined; trial in the case is likely to take
some time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping
the petitioner behind bars for indefinite period. Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits 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
further submits that the petitioner is also willing to furnish security in the
form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) before the concerned Court, so as to
ensure his presence before the Court on each and every date of hearing.
Accordingly, prayer for grant of regular bail is made.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037812
10. 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 intoxicant material recovered 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 submits that in case the petitioner is released on bail then he
might influence the witnesses and also abscond and delay the trial.
Accordingly, prayer for dismissal of the present petition has been made.
11. However, learned State counsel while referring to the custody
certificate has submitted that there is no other case pending against the
petitioner and he has undergone actual custody in this case for a period of
two years, four months and nineteen days (as on 12.03.2024). It is also
conceded by learned State counsel that investigation in the case is complete,
challan stands presented and charges have also been framed.
12. 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.
13. Since the petitioner seeks grant of bail mainly on account of
long custody, no criminal antecedents and trial not likely to conclude in near
future, accordingly gainful reference can be made to judgments rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Chitta Biswas @ Subhas v. State of West
Bengal" (Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 2020 dated 07.02.2020), "Nitish
Adhikary @ Bapan v. State of West Bengal" (Special Leave(Crl.) No. 5769
of 2022), "Shariful Islam @ Sarif v. State of West Bengal" (Special Leave
to Appeal (Crl) 4173 of 2022 dated 04.08.2022), "Karnail Singh v. State of
Odisha" (Criminal Appeal No. 2027 of 2022 dated 22.11.2022), "Karim
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037812
Adaldar v. State of West Bengal" (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8653
of 2022), "Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh" (SLP
No.6690 of 2022 dated 25.01.2023) and "Hasanujjaman and others Vs.
The State of West Bengal" (Special Leave Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3221 of
2023 dated 04.05.2023).
14. Concededly, the alleged recovery in this case falls under the
category of 'commercial quantity' and bar of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act
is attracted, however, while dealing with Section 37 ibid, the Court is not
called upon to record a finding of "not guilty" and it is only required to say
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of
the offence.
15. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and
on an assessment of material on record, especially the fact that petitioner is
not involved in any other case, more so under the N.D.P.S. Act, and the
alleged recovery having been effected from a pithoo bag (black colour), I
am of the prima facie view at this stage that the petitioner may not have
committed the alleged offence and he is unlikely to commit an offence
under the N.D.P.S. Act, while on bail.
16. Furthermore, the petitioner is in custody for a period of two
years, four months and nineteen days (as on 12.03.2024). Investigation in
the case is complete, challan stands presented on 31.03.2022 and even
charges have been framed on 19.05.2022. The petitioner does not have any
criminal antecedents and trial in the case is likely to take some time to
conclude.
17. So far as the apprehension expressed by learned State counsel
that the witnesses could be influenced by the petitioner, suffice it to state
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037812
that in the event of any such conduct, the prosecution can always approach
the competent Court for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, it is observed that
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 indulging in influencing any of the witnesses or tampering
with the prosecution evidence in any manner or otherwise causing
interference with the progress of trial, 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 merits.
18. In view of the above discussion, 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 appear before the concerned Police Station/Station
House Officer on every alternate Monday till the conclusion of trial.
19. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall
prepare a Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037812
any sufficient cause.
20. 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.
21. The petition is accordingly disposed of.
22. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.
13.03.2024 (HARSH BUNGER)
Apurva JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
2. Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037812
7 of 7
