Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh @ Laddy vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2024:PHHC:039188
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRM-M-14467-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-19.3.2024
Jaswinder Singh @ Laddy ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. L.S.Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Malhotra, DAG, Punjab,
assisted by ASI Mithu Ram.
*****
FIR No. Dated Police Station Section/s
147 17.07.2021 Dirba, District 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs
Sangrur and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of
regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.
2. As per the case of prosecution, petitioner-Jaswinder Singh @ Laddy was
apprehended by the police on 17.7.2021 on the basis of secret information.
The search of petitioner led to recovery of 770 intoxicant tablets labeled as
'Tramadol Hydrochloride'.
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-14467-2023 (O&M) (2) 2024:PHHC:039188
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the petitioner has falsely
been implicated in the present case and that in any case the petitioner has
been behind bars for a period of about 2 years, 6 months and 29 days and
since as of now, only 5 out of the cited 24 PWs have been examined, the
petitioner deserves the concession of bail.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that having regard
to the fact that a 'commercial' quantity of contraband, no case for grant of
bail is made out. It has also been informed that the petitioner stands involved
in 1 more case i.e. FIR No.124, dated 22.7.2019, Police Station Dirba,
District Sangrur, under Sections 14/22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act, wherein the
petitioner is already on bail. Learned State counsel has, however, informed
that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 2 years, 6 months
and 29 days and that only 5 out of the cited 24 PWs have been examined till
date.
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court.
6. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is alleged to have been caught red
handed while in possession of a 'commercial' quantity of contraband.
Although the petitioner is stated to be involved in one more case i.e. FIR
No.124, dated 22.7.2019, Police Station Dirba, District Sangrur, under
Sections 14/22/29/61/85 of NDPS Act but the said matter pertains to recovery
of non-commercial quantity and wherein he is already on bail.
7. The conclusion of trial is certainly likely to consume time inasmuch a large
number of PWs i.e. 24 PWs have been cited. In these circumstances, having
regard to the custody of the petitioner i.e. about 2 years, 6 months and 29
days and the fact that the trial is likely to be prolonged in view of the large
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-14467-2023 (O&M) (3) 2024:PHHC:039188
number of witnesses, further detention of the petitioner would not be
justified.
8. Since the petitioner seeks grant of bail mainly on account of long custody, it
is apposite to refer to a few judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this
regard wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the concession of bail
solely on ground of long custody :-
Case Number Date of Title of case Period which the
Decision accused had undergone
when granted bail by
Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Criminal 07.02.2020 Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. 1 year and 7 months
Appeal No. the State of West Bengal
Criminal 12.10.2020 Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of 2 years and 7 months
Appeal No. Himachal Pradesh
Special Leave 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. 1 year and 7 months
to Appeal the State of West Bengal
(Crl.) No.
Special Leave 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. 1 year and 6 months
to Appeal the State of West Bengal
(Crl.) No.
4173 of 2022
Criminal 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna Patra @ 2 years 1 month and 17
Appeal No. Gopalrusma Vs. Union of days
1169 of 2022 India
Special Leave 22.08.2022 Mohammad Salman Hanif About 2 years
to Appeal Shaikh Vs. the State of
(Crl.) No. Gujarat
5530-2022
Criminal 22.11.2022 Karnail Singh Vs. The State 1 Year and 8 months
Appeal No. of Odisha
2027-2022
Special Leave 25.11.2022 Karim Adaldar Vs. The State 10 months
to Appeal of West Bengal
(Crl.) No.
8653-2022
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in yet another judgment dated 25.1.2023 arising out
of SLP No.6690-2022 titled Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh has granted bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act where the
accused alongwith co-accused was found in possession of 'commercial'
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-14467-2023 (O&M) (4) 2024:PHHC:039188
quantity of 'Ganja' and had been behind bars since the last two and a half
years while observing that in the absence of any criminal antecedents, the
conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be dispensed with at that
stage, particularly when there was delay in conclusion of trial.
10. In yet another case titled Chet Ram @ Ram Veer Versus Union of India
(Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).1166/2023) decided on 15.3.2023,
Hon'ble the Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner, accused of
possessing a 'commercial' quantity of contraband, who had been behind bars
since the last about 3½ years and wherein only 1 PW out of cited 10 PWs had
been examined despite the fact that he was involved in another case for
offence under NDPS Act on the ground that the trial was not likely to be
concluded immediately.
11. In any case, the petitioner has already been behind bars for a substantial
period of 2 years, 6 months and 29 days but despite the said custody only 5
out of the cited 24 PWs have been examined till date. The petition, as such,
is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his
furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial
Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
12. It is, however, directed that in case the petitioner is found to be indulging in
similar offence again, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an
application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
19.3.2024 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
mohan Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
integrity of this order/judgment
