Bani Singh @ Vani Singh vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 6276 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bani Singh @ Vani Singh vs State Of Haryana on 20 March, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040366




                                                           2024:PHHC:040366


CRM-M-21749-2023 (O & M)                                                   ::1::-


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


                                                 CRM-M-21749-2023 (O & M)
                                                   Date of Decision: 20.03.2024

Bani Singh @ Vani Singh

                                                                   ... Petitioner

                                        Versus
State of Haryana
                                                                  ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:    Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate,
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar, AAG, Haryana.

                   ****
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 bearing FIR No.346 dated

09.08.2022 under Sections 22-C and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections

3, 4 and 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 registered at

Police Station Chandhut, District Palwal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that one Hari Lal @ Harish, owner

of Diksha Medical Store was apprehended with his car was found containing

2460 tablets of Alprasafe, 103 Ampoules, Tramwel Injection of 2 ml each,

134 Ampoules, Perizocine Injection and 180 tablets of Ativan besides other

drugs.

                               1 of 6

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040366




                                                          2024:PHHC:040366


CRM-M-21749-2023 (O & M)                                                  ::2::-

3. The arrested accused made a disclosure statement naming one

Sonu, resident of Aligarh and Sanjay Kumar, resident of Kosi Kalan (U.P.).

Accused-Sonu was arrested on 12.09.2022 and disclosed that he had procured

the drugs from Yogender Kumar @ Pankaj, resident of Aligarh.

Accused-Yogender Kumar @ Pankaj was arrested on 14.09.2022

and disclosed the name of Bani Singh (petitioner) from whom he procured the

drugs.

On 15.09.2022, Bani Singh was arrested with 08 boxes of

Pentazocine injections (total 800 injections) and 08 boxes of Proxymed-Spas

Capsules (total 1920 capsules) and a scooty bearing No.UP 81CP 7742. He

disclosed the name of his procurer as Tinku.

4. On conclusion of the investigation qua accused Hari Lal @

Harish, Sonu, Yogender Kumar @ Pankaj and Bani Singh, the report under

Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. was submitted to the Trial Court on 31.03.2023.

5. 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. As he was a first-time offender, in custody since 15.09.2022 and

none of 26 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the trial of the

present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he

was entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040366

2024:PHHC:040366

CRM-M-21749-2023 (O & M) ::3::-

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,.

6. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that

commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from the petitioner.

Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,

the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that

the petitioner was a first time offender, in custody since 15.09.2022 and none

of the 26 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

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

8. 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

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040366

2024:PHHC:040366

CRM-M-21749-2023 (O & M) ::4::-

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."

9. 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 of 6

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040366




                                                            2024:PHHC:040366


CRM-M-21749-2023 (O & M)                                                       ::5::-

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 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)

10. 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.

                                 5 of 6

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040366




                                                           2024:PHHC:040366


CRM-M-21749-2023 (O & M)                                                    ::6::-

11. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since

15.09.2022 and none of the 26 prosecution witnesses have been examined so

far. He is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against him.

In this situation, 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.

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

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Bani Singh @ Vani Singh is ordered to

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

satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

13. 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 other than the

present case.

14. 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.

15. The petition stands disposed of.

                                                      (JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
                                                           JUDGE
March 20, 2024
sukhpreet      Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
                   Whether reportable:-               Yes/No



                               6 of 6