Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vikramjeet Singh @ Bikkar vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -1-
203+206+209
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-57408-2023
Date of Decision: 21.03.2024
Vikramjeet Singh @ Bikkar ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CRM-M-3474-2024
Harpreet Singh @ Happy ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CRM-M-9203-2024
Vicky Singh ..... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Mr. Harmanpreet S. Mander, Advocate for
Mr. Harpreet Singh Multani, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-57408-2023.
Mr. Vivek Singla Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-3474-2024.
Mr. J.K. Singla Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-9203-2024.
Mr. A.S. Pannu, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (ORAL)
1. These petitions have been filed under Section 439 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioners and are
being taken up together for final disposal with the consent of the learned
1 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -2-
counsels for the petitioners, since they arise out of the same FIR bearing
No.25 dated 13.03.2021, under Sections 22, 25 of the NDPS Act (Section
29, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act added later on), registered at Police Station
Dhanaula, District Barnala.
2. Status report by way of affidavit of Superintendent District Jail,
Barnala has been filed in CRM-M-57408-2023 by the learned State Counsel
in Court today and the same is taken on record.
3. The FIR was lodged on the basis of the information received by
the police that two persons, namely, Vikramjeet Singh @ Bikkar (Petitioner
in CRM-M-57408-2023) and Harpreet Singh @ Happy (Petitioner in CRM-
M-3474-2024) being in connivance with each other bring narcotic tablets
from outer States and distribute in Districts Sangrur and Barnala at a large
scale and the number of the car was also mentioned in the FIR i.e. PB-09-Z-
8911 colour white make Swift and they had also changed the number of the
car to DL-09A-AL-4312. Thereafter, a naka was laid down by the police on
receiving information and registering of the FIR. Two petitioners, namely,
Vikramjeet Singh @ Bikkar and Harpreet Singh @ Happy were caught on
the spot and allegedly there was a recovery of 10000 tablets of Tramadol
Hydrochloride and two fake number plates of the car from them. During the
investigation, they disclosed the name of other co-accused, namely, Vicky
Singh (Petitioner in CRM-M-9203-2024), from whom, there was a recovery
of 40,000 tablets along with drug money of Rs.1,50,000/- and thereafter, on
his disclosure statement, another alleged recovery of 8000 tablets were
recovered and in this way total 48,000 tablets were recovered from the
petitioner-Vicky Singh. On the basis of the disclosure statement of the
2 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -3-
petitioner-Vicky Singh, one another co-accused, namely, Rinku Singh was
also nominated and on whose disclosure statement also, there was a recovery
of 1350 tablets. Thereafter, the aforesaid co-accused, namely, Rinku Singh
disclosed the name of Raju Singh.
4. It has been submitted by Mr. Harmanpreet S. Mander, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Vikramjeet Singh @ Bikkar in
CRM-M-57408-2023 that this is the third bail petition filed by the petitioner
and he is in custody for more than 3 years and earlier also he had filed two
bail petitions before this Court for grant of regular bail out of which one was
dismissed on 25.04.2022 and second was withdrawn on 21.03.2023, but now
considering the aforesaid long custody of the petitioner, he may be
considered for grant of regular bail. He further submitted that the petitioner-
Vikramjeet Singh @ Bikkar is not involved in any other case under the
NDPS Act. He submitted that although he was involved in two more cases
under the IPC but he has since been acquitted in both cases and as such there
is no other case against him.
5. Mr. Vivek Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner-Harpreet Singh @ Happy in CRM-M-3474-2024 submitted that
this is the third bail petition filed by the petitioner and is also in custody for
more than 3 years and earlier he had filed two petitions before this Court for
grant of regular bail out of which one was dismissed on 25.07.2022 and
second was withdrawn on 21.09.2023. He further submitted that the
petitioner was involved in one more case under the NDPS Act in which he
was convicted for one month because it was a small quantity and there is one
case under the Prisons Act against him. He submitted that considering his
3 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -4-
custody, he may also be considered for grant of regular bail.
6. Mr. J.K. Singla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner-Vicky Singh in CRM-M-9203-2024 submitted that this is the
fourth bail petition filed by the petitioner and the earlier three petitions were
dismissed as withdrawn. He further submitted that the petitioner is in
custody for 1 year and 1 month because after adjusting the custody in other
case, his total custody in the present case comes out to be 1 year and 1
month, although in the present case, he is behind the bars for the same
period as that of the aforesaid two co-accused. He further submitted that so
far as the antecedents of the present petitioner is concerned, he was earlier
involved in five more cases, out of which, there are two convictions and two
cases are pending trial. He further submitted that the name of the petitioner
has been nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-
accused and there is no other material available with the prosecution to
connect the petitioner with the present offence except for the disclosure
statement of the co-accused, which is otherwise not admissible in evidence.
He has referred to a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Tofan
Singh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu", 2021(4) SCC 1, to contend that the
disclosure statement of the co-accused per se is not permissible in law and
still he has faced long incarceration and therefore, he may also be considered
for grant of regular bail.
7. All the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners
have argued together that even otherwise also although the alleged recovery
is stated to be large and falls in the category of commercial quantity but the
bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply in the
4 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -5-
present cases considering the facts and circumstances and also considering
the custody of the petitioners. To substantiate their arguments, they referred
to the interlocutory orders which have been passed by the learned trial Court
after the framing of the charges on 16.09.2021 and photocopies of the same
have been produced before this Court which are taken on record and mark as
'X'. They submitted that 2½ years have elapsed after the framing of the
charges and till date only 8 out of 30 cited prosecution witnesses have been
examined and while referring to the aforesaid order, they submitted that the
prosecution witnesses, who are none other but the police officials, who had
set the criminal law into motion, have not bothered and cared to depose
before the Court despite strict orders and summons being issued to them.
While referring to the aforesaid interlocutory orders, they submitted that for
11 times, bailable warrants were issued to the prosecution witnesses and
once even non-bailable warrants were also issued. For about five times, the
learned trial Court had directed that the prosecution witnesses be served
through the concerned SSP and for five times, even warrants of arrest were
issued which remained unexecuted. They further submitted that the trial
Court had been repeatedly issuing the bailable and non-bailable warrants and
surprisingly even the warrants of arrest remained unexecuted against none
other but the police officials who are on duty and they did not bother to
appear before the Court for deposing. They also submitted that in fact it is a
case where the police in order to justify some tablets have planted the case
upon the petitioners and that is a reason, as to why they are not deposing
before the Court despite repeated summons, bailable and non-bailable
warrants being issued against them. The learned counsels also submitted that
5 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -6-
be that as it may, even otherwise also, the custody of the petitioner is more
than three years and considering the judgments passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court passed in "Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another", 2022(10) SCC 51, "Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", 2023 AIR(SC) 1648, "Dheeraj Kumar Shukla
Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh" 2023 SCC Online SC 918 and "Rabi
Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha" in Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.4169 of 2023, the petitioners are entitled for grant of regular bail in the
light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
8. On the other hand, Mr. A.S. Pannu, learned Assistant Advocate
General, Punjab submitted that so far as the aforesaid custody of all the
petitioners is concerned, the same is correct and the list of other cases
against the petitioners which is so stated by the learned counsels for the
petitioners is also correct. He further submitted that the charges in the
present case were framed on 16.09.2021, which is almost 2½ years ago and
8 out of 30 witnesses have been examined till today. He has however
opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioners on the ground that there is
a huge recovery which were initially from the petitioners, namely,
Vikramjeet Singh @ Bikkar and Harpreet Singh @ Happy to the extent of
10000 tablets of Tramadol Hydrochloride and thereafter, 48000 tablets of
Tramadol Hydrochloride and considering the huge recovery, the petitioners
are not entitled for grant of regular bail. He also submitted that so far as one
of the petitioners, namely, Vicky Singh, is concerned, he is a habitual
offender as aforesaid.
9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
6 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -7-
10. The custody of all the three petitioners is more than three years.
However, the custody of the petitioner, namely, Vicky Singh is shown to be
1 year and 1 month because he is involved in other cases as well and after
adjusting the same, the aforesaid custody period has come to light. The
petitioner, namely, Vikramjeet Singh @ Bikkar is stated to be not involved
in any other case. The petitioner-Harpreet Singh @ Happy is stated to be
involved in one case under the NDPS Act in which he was convicted earlier
in the year 2013 for a period of one month. Both the aforesaid petitioners
were apprehended on the spot. So far as the third petitioner, namely, Vicky
Singh is concerned, he was not apprehended on the spot but he was
nominated on the basis of the disclosure statement of the aforesaid
petitioners and thereafter, there was an alleged recovery from him as well.
11. The charges in the present case were framed on 16.09.2021 and
a perusal of the orders which have been supplied by the learned counsels for
the petitioners in the Court today would show that repeatedly bailable and
non-bailable warrants were issued against the prosecution witnesses and in
total for about 11 times, the bailable warrants were issued, for one time non-
bailable warrants were issued. For five times, the prosecution witnesses who
are the police officials were directed to be served through concerned SSP
and thereafter, even for five times, warrants of arrest were issued some of
which remained unexecuted and prosecution witnesses did not appear before
the learned trial Court for deposition. It appears that with great efforts of the
learned trial Court, 8 prosecution witnesses had caused appearance and had
deposed.
12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil's case
7 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -8-
(supra) discussed this issue with regard to delay in trial and its effect on the
right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Para No.49 of the
aforesaid judgment is reproduced as under:-
"49. Sub-section (1) mandates courts to continue
the proceedings on a day-to-day basis till the completion
of the evidence. Therefore, once a trial starts, it should
reach the logical end. Various directions have been
issued by this Court not to give unnecessary
adjournments resulting in the witnesses being won over.
However, the non-compliance of Section 309 continues
with gay abandon. Perhaps courts alone cannot be
faulted as there are multiple reasons that lead to such
adjournments. Though the section makes adjournments
and that too not for a longer time period as an
exception, they become the norm.
We are touching upon this provision only to show
that any delay on the part of the court or the prosecution
would certainly violate Article 21. This is more so when
the accused person is under incarceration. This
provision must be applied inuring to the benefit of the
accused while considering the application for bail.
Whatever may be the nature of the offence, a prolonged
trial, appeal or a revision against an accused or a
convict under custody or incarceration, would be
violative of Article 21. While the courts will have to
endeavour to complete at least the recording of the
evidence of the private witnesses, as indicated by this
Court on quite a few occasions, they shall make sure that
the accused does not suffer for the delay occasioned due
to no fault of his own."
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain's case
(supra) also discussed the issue with regard to delay in trial and the long
8 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -9-
custody of the accused person vis-a-vis the bar contained Section 37 of the
NDPS Act. The relevant Paras of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced as
under:-
"19. A plain and literal interpretation of the
conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be
satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not
commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of
bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and
unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the
only manner in which such special conditions as enacted
under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional
parameters is where the court is reasonably satisfied on
a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever
the bail application is made) that the accused is not
guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete
denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as
those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one,
where the court would look at the material in a broad
manner, and reasonably see whether the accused's guilt
may be proved. The judgments of this court have,
therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts
are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be
guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable
reading, which does not call for meticulous examination
of the materials collected during investigation (as held in
Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground
of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by
Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section
436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act
too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to
these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of
9 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -10-
this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail."
14. Similarly, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's
case (supra) has opined as under:
"3. It appears that some of the occupants of the 'Honda
City' Car including Praveen Maurya @ Puneet Maurya
have since been released on regular bail. It is true that
the quantity recovered from the petitioner is commercial
in nature and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act may
ordinarily be attracted. However, in the absence of
criminal antecedents and the fact that the petitioner is in
custody for the last two and a half years, we are satisfied
that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be
dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet
to commence though the charges have been framed."
15. Thereafter, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rabi Prakash's case
(Supra) has dealt with the issue of prolonged incarceration. The relevant
portion of the judgment is reproduced as below:
"4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section
37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent-
State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands
complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation
of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not
be formed at this stage when he has already spent more
than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged
incarceration, generally militates against the most
precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21
of the Constitution and in such a situation, the
conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo
created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."
16. During the course of arguments, this Court raised a specific
10 of 11
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042180
2024:PHHC:042180
CRM-M-57408-2023 with connected cases -11-
query to the learned AAG, Punjab that as to what is the justification with
regard to non-appearance of the prosecution witnesses and the trial Court
had to issue bailable and non-bailable warrants against them to which he
could not offer any justification. The only ground of opposing the bail to the
petitioners is that the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act
applies in the present cases.
17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is
of the view that the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not
apply to the petitioners in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India
and also in view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
of India and their custody which is more than three years. Therefore, this
Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to all the petitioners.
18. Consequently, all the petitions are allowed and the petitioners
are ordered to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not
required in any other case.
19. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as
an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is only meant for the
purpose of decision of present petition.
21.03.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
Bhumika JUDGE
1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
2. Whether reportable: Yes/No
11 of 11
