Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chanan Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036745
2024:PHHC:036745
214 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-59150-2023
Date of decision: 14.03.2024
Chanan Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.0004 dated 13.01.2020 under
Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
registered at Police Station Khalra, District Tarn Taran.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the medical
certificate of the petitioner in compliance of order 29.11.2023 passed by this
Court and the same is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an
appropriate place in the file.
The present FIR was registered on the allegations that on
13.01.2020, the police party was patrolling and was going from Khalra to
Village Narla on Government Vehicle Bolero which was being driven by HC
Salwinder Singh and two persons were apprehended on suspicion and they
disclosed their names as Chanan Singh (the petitioner herein) and Gurpreeet
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036745
2024:PHHC:036745
Singh. The plastic bag thrown by the accused persons were searched and
intoxicating tablets were recovered and from the bag held by the petitioner, 630
tablets were recovered and 290 tablets were recovered from the bag held by co-
accused-Gurpreet Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act are admittedly not complied with and
non-adherence to the safeguard provided under the Act would vitiate the entire
trial and it would amount to violation of Article 21 which ensures free and fair
investigation. The contraband allegedly recovered from the petitioner is
marginally higher than the commercial quantity and petitioner has undergone a
custody of more than 01 year and 09 months. The challan was presented way
back on 03.06.2020, charges were framed on 04.08.2020 and the prosecution
has failed to conclude its evidence. He further placed reliance on the judgment
of this Court passed in CRM-M-349-2021 titled as 'Harpreet Singh Vs. State of
Punjab' decided on 01.07.2021.
Per contra, the learned State counsel, on instructions from SI
Kulwinder Singh, opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner
on the ground that petitioner is found under conscious possession of
commercial quantity, as such, he is not entitled to the relief of regular bail.
Further, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in
any other case and the quantity is marginally higher than the commercial
quantity and fairly admits that out of 08 PWs only 02 PWs have been examined
so far.
A two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Satender
Kumar Antil v. CBI' (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036745
2024:PHHC:036745
of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:
"6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics
placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates
of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of
prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite
registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences
punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and
illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of
offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court,
it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the
part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a
draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be
used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression
that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each
other."
This Court in 'Rajender Singh @ Raju Vs. State of Haryana' and
'Iqbal Singh Bali Vs. State of Punjab' 2022 (2) Law Herald 1493, while
dealing with the issue of granting bail in a case in which the quantity of the
alleged contraband is marginally higher than the commercial quantity, granted
bail to the accused therein.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars for more
than 01 year and 09 months and the trial of the case has not even reached
halfway mark as only 02 out of 08 prosecution witnesses have been examined
so far. The culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial.
Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial
being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036745
2024:PHHC:036745
In view the above, the present petition is allowed. Thus, without
commenting upon the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome of the
trial, the petitioner-Chanan Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail
during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court.
Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of
opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed
without being prejudiced by observations of this Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
14.03.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036745
4 of 4
