Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaskaran Singh vs State Of Punjab on 19 March, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2024:PHHC:039233
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRM-M-64276-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 19.03.2024
Jaskaran Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. G.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Malhotra, DAG, Punjab,
assisted by ASI Jasvir Singh.
*****
FIR DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES
NO.
36 22.4.2023 Kotbhai, District Sri 22(C)/61/85 of NDPS Act
Muktsar Sahib
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. The allegations, in nutshell, are that on 22.4.2023, during the course
of patrolling a police party came across 3 persons standing near a
parked motorcycle and who were carrying a plastic bag. One of them,
who later disclosed his name as Lovepreet Singh was seen holding the
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-64276-2023 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:039233
plastic bag with his right hand while another person who later
disclosed his name as Rajwinder Singh was holding the other end of
the bag with his hands. The third person, who later disclosed his
name as Jaskaran Singh is alleged to be searching the bag. The said
persons were apprehended by the police and the polythene bag carried
by them was found to contain 2350 tablets of 'Tramadol'.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has falsely been
implicated in the present case and that the manner, in which the
accused are alleged to have been seen handling the contraband does
not appeal to reason at all inasmuch as the total weight of the
recovered contraband works out to barely 874.25 grams and as such
would not require two persons to carry it. Learned counsel further
submits that the petitioner has a clean record and is not involved in
any other case and that despite the petitioner having been behind bars
since the last about 10 months and 26 days, not even a single PW out
of the cited 24 PWs has been examined till date.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that since the
petitioner alongwith co-accused was found in possession of
'commercial quantity' of contraband and was caught red-handed at
the spot, his complicity is clearly evident. Learned State counsel has
not disputed the fact that the petitioner has been behind bars since the
last about 10 months and 26 days and that no PW out of the cited 24
PWs has been examined till date. It has also been informed that the
petitioner is not involved in any other case.
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-64276-2023 (O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:039233
5. This Court has considered the rival submissions addressed before this
Court.
6. The police claims to have recovered 2350 tablets of 'Tramadol'. As
per report of FSL, each of the tablet weighs 372 miligrams. In other
words, the total weight of the recovered contraband works out to
874.25 grams. While, in a case of recovery of contraband jointly
from several persons, conscious possession can be attributed to all
such persons, but the present case has slightly peculiar facts which
puts this Court to caution and raises several doubts particularly, as
regards the manner in which the polythene bag is stated to have been
handled by the accused at the time when they were seen by the police.
The total weight of recovered contraband is less than 1 kg. It remains
unexplained as to why two persons, each of them with one hand from
each side of the bag, were required to carry the said polythene bag.
The weight of bag was not so enormous requiring two persons to
carry it. Interestingly, the third person i.e. the petitioner is alleged to
be searching the bag though it is not the case of prosecution that there
were any other articles or any other type of contraband in the bag so
as to necessitate the petitioner to look for something in the said bag.
The petitioner otherwise has been behind bars for the last more than
10 months. The trial has not even commenced till date inasmuch as
none out of the cited 24 PWs has been examined till date. The
petitioner otherwise enjoys a clean record and is not stated to be
involved in any other case. Under these circumstances, it is a fit case
where benefit of bail can be extended to the petitioner despite Section
37 of the Act. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is
integrity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-64276-2023 (O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:039233
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.
7. It is however, clarified that none of the observations made above shall
be taken to be any expression as regards the merits of the case.
19.03.2024 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
mohan JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
integrity of this order/judgment
