Punjab-Haryana High Court
Danvir Singh Alias Danvir vs State Of Punjab on 14 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037247
CRM-M-12263-2024(O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:037247
205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12263-2024(O&M)
Date of Decision: 14.03.2024
Danvir Singh @ Danvir
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate, for
Mr. Monty Goyal, 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 grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.67 dated 07.02.2022, under Sections 22/61/85 of NDPS Act, registered
at Police Station Sohana, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is in custody for 2 years and 1 month and charges in the
present case were framed on 10.02.2023 which is more than 1 year and only
6 witnesses out of 15 have been examined but no material witness has been
examined. He submitted that only the formal witness who has deposited the
sample in the Forensic Laboratory, Clerk of office of the Superintendent of
Police and other formal witnesses have been examined but for the reasons
best known to the prosecution none of the recovery witness or a part of the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037247
CRM-M-12263-2024(O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:037247
police party has been examined. He further submitted that even as per FIR,
the story as put forward by the police was that the policy party was
searching the bad elements prior to the elections in the State of Punjab and
they saw the petitioner on a motorcycle and there has been a recovery of
18000 tablets of Diphenoxylate from the petitioner. He submitted that it is a
case where the aforesaid alleged recovery has taken place just prior to the
Assembly Election and it was a case of political enmity only particularly
in view of the fact that the petitioner was not involved in any other case
except for one case under the NDPS Act wherein he has already been
acquitted and only to settle the scores on political side that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case. To substantiate his arguments,
he submitted that even as per FIR itself, the recovery has been shown to be
of tablets and the batch number of the same has been mentioned, whereas
no such batch number is mentioned in the FSL report which is attached as
Annexure P-2. He submitted that in this way it appears that some other
tablets have been planted upon the petitioner and that is the reason as to
why the batch number is not mentioned in the FSL report. He submitted
that be that as it may, he has already faced incarceration for 2 years and 1
month and no material witness has been examined till date and considering
the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil
Versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another [2022 (10) SCC 51],
Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Versus State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 AIR (SC)
1648], Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh (Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.(s) 6690 of 2022) and Rabi Prakash Versus State
of Odisha, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169 of 2023, he may be
considered for the grant of regular bail.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037247
CRM-M-12263-2024(O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:037247
3. On the other hand, Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab
has submitted on instructions from ASI Raj Kumar that so far as the custody
of the petitioner is concerned, the same is correct and it is also correct that
the charges in the present case were framed on 10.02.2023 but no material
witness has been examined till date. He submitted that neither the recovery
witnesses nor the witnesses who were part of the police party have been
examined. He submitted that since the recovery falls in the category of
commercial quantity, the prayer of the petitioner is hit by the bar contained
under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. It is a case where the petitioner has already faced incarceration
for 2 years and 1 month. The alleged recovery is stated to be 18000 tablets
of Diphenoxylate which falls in the category of commercial quantity.
However, the facts and circumstances has to be seen for the purpose of
considering the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in the present case.
The petitioner is stated to be having clean antecedents since as per learned
counsel for the parties, he was earlier involved in one case under the NDPS
Act but he has since been acquitted. As per FIR, the same was lodged just
before the Assembly Election in the State of Punjab. It is a categorical case
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was only because of political
enmity that the present FIR was lodged against the petitioner by planting the
tablets upon him. He also referred to Annexure P-2 which is the FSL report
where the batch number is not mentioned, whereas batch number of tablets
finds mention in the FIR which is Annexure P-1. Although this Court does
not wish to go into the effect of the aforesaid but considering the long
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037247
CRM-M-12263-2024(O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:037247
custody of the petitioner and the fact that more than 1 year has elapsed after
the framing of the charges but no material witness has been examined, this
Court is of the view that the ratio of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court as aforesaid will be applicable to the petitioner and, therefore, this
Court is of the considered view that the bar contained under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner in the light of Article 21 of
the Constitution of India and also in the light of the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court as aforesaid.
6. Therefore, considering the totality and circumstances of the
present case, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to the
petitioner.
7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner
shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not
required in any other case.
8. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as
an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose
of deciding the present petition only.
14.03.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh JUDGE
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:037247
4 of 4
