Jagdish Singh @ Kala vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 5759 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdish Singh @ Kala vs State Of Punjab on 14 March, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036858




                                                            2024:PHHC:036858

CRM-M-32461-2023 (O & M)                                                         ::1::-

     (217) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                             CRM-M-32461-2023 (O & M)
                                              Date of Decision: 14.03.2024

Jagdish Singh @ Kala

                                                                       ... Petitioner

                                        Versus
State of Punjab
                                                                      ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr. G.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.

            Mr. Deepinder Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

                   ****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for

the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.122 dated 03.08.2021

under Sections 21, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act (Section 29, 85 of the NDPS

Act added later on) registered at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Jagdish Singh @ Kala

(petitioner) came to be apprehended with 20 grams of heroin which he had

thrown away on seeing the police party. On arrest, he suffered his disclosure

statement and got firstly, 600 grams of heroin recovered and thereafter, a

further 10 kgs.

During the course of investigation, he named Sunil @ Nata

(since granted bail vide order dated 11.03.2024 passed in CRM-M-3879-

2023). Sunil @ Nata was arrested and named one Gurpavittar Singh @ Sai.

                               1 of 6

                                                    Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036858




                                                            2024:PHHC:036858

CRM-M-32461-2023 (O & M)                                                         ::2::-

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner

had been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of

Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with in their

proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the time of search

and seizure. He contends that the petitioner is involved in one other case

registered against him bearing FIR No.49 dated 26.04.2021 under Sections

21/23/29/61/85 NDPS Act, Police Station Sadar Ferozepur. In the present

case, as the petitioner was in custody since 03.08.2021 and only 10 of the 25

prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the Trial of the present case

was not likely to be concluded anytime soon. He, therefore, prays that in

view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Nitish

Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)

Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in

CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman &

others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023 arising

out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in

CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023'., the petitioner was

entitled to the concession of bail, moreso, when a co-accused, namely, Sunil

@ Nata has been granted the concession of bail.

4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed a

reply dated 14.03.2024 which is taken on record. While referring to the said

reply, he contends that the petitioner was an accused in one other case bearing

FIR No.49 dated 26.04.2021 under the NDPS Act. Therefore, he was not

entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036858

2024:PHHC:036858

CRM-M-32461-2023 (O & M) ::3::-

was in custody since 03.08.2021 and only 10 of the 25 prosecution witnesses

had been examined so far.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @

Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on

01.08.2022 held as under:-

"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.

During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036858

2024:PHHC:036858

CRM-M-32461-2023 (O & M) ::4::-

7. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,

SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-

"1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave Petition, who were accused of committing an offence under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS Act') in FIR No.18/2022, dated 09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.

2. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners. They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and four months.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036858

2024:PHHC:036858

CRM-M-32461-2023 (O & M) ::5::-

of bail granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.

7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.

(emphasis supplied)

8. Admittedly, in 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra) and

Hasanujjaman & others (supra)', the accused therein had been granted the

concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone

approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time

offenders as is borne out from the orders.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody for

more than 02 years and 07 months, though, he is involved in one other case.

As only 10 of the 25 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the

Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In view

of the fact that the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of custody,

the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view

of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which

provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be

considered for the grant of bail.

10. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Jagdish Singh @ Kala is ordered to be

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036858

2024:PHHC:036858

CRM-M-32461-2023 (O & M) ::6::-

released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the

satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

11. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on

the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in

writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime/case(s) other than

the case(s) referred to in this order.

12. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare

an FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court.

The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of

the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

13. The petition stands disposed of.

(JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE March 14, 2024 sukhpreet Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036858

6 of 6