Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harmeet Singh @ Shambhu vs State Of Haryana on 21 March, 2024
CRM-M-54076-2023 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040912
2023:PHHC:040912 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
202 CRM-M-54076-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 21.03.2024
Harmeet Singh @ Shambhu
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Vishavjeet Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. AG, Haryana.
***
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.248 dated
23.07.2020 registered under Section 22(b) of NDPS Act, at Police Station
Sadar Sirsa, District Sirsa.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for
last 1 year and 10 months. He has been falsely implicated in the case.
Recovery of 610 tablets of Tramadol was effected from the pillion rider.
No independent witness has been joined at the time of recovery. There is
non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act.
Charges were framed on 15.12.2022, however, only 4 out of 15 witnesses
have been examined so far. Father of the petitioner has serious mental
illness and mother is bed ridden and no one else to take care of them.
Certificate of Panchayat in this regard as also petitioner being the only
son, is appended as Annexure P6. He is involved in one more case under
NDPS Act, wherein he is on bail. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
1 of 5
CRM-M-54076-2023 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040912
Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State
of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. He was granted interim bail on
account of non-receipt of FSL report and had not misused the concession
of bail and surrendered before the trial Court on receiving of the said
report as depicted in order dated 14.01.2021 (Annexure P4). He further
relied upon judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Subhabrata Roy
@ Bapi Roy @ Roy Bapi vs. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
No.4637/2023, wherein the accused was granted bail even when the trial
was at the fag end.
3. The custody certificate dated 21.03.2024, filed by learned
State counsel is taken on record, as per which, the petitioner is behind
bars for 1 year, 9 months and 18 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that
commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the co-
accused/pillion rider and petitioner was apprehended at the spot. He
submits that 3 more witnesses have been examined, whose cross-
examination is pending. He is however unable to controvert the
submission that the petitioner is on bail in other case.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Kumar
Shukla vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No.6690/2022
decided on 25.01.2023 observed that in case of long custody period,
involving quantity recovered to be of commercial nature, where the trial is
yet to commence, though charges had been framed, the condition of
Section 37 of NDPS Act can be dispensed with. In the case of Bhupender
Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, the
2 of 5
CRM-M-54076-2023 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040912
Division Bench of this Court observed with regard to achieving balance
between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. Similarly, in
the case of Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. The State of West Bengal SLP
(Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon'ble The Supreme Court
granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity
of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and
there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In the
case of Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022,
decided on 06.02.2023, this Court granted bail to a first offender from
whom commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered and only 2
out of 13 PWs have been examined, by observing that in view of delayed
trial, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent and
the petitioner can be granted bail, keeping in mind the right to a speedy
trial as envisaged Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
7. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court,
merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second
respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to
find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the
jurisdiction of the Court etc."
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in
particular that the petitioner is in custody for last 1 year, 9 months and 18
days; on bail in other case under the NDPS Act; charges have been
framed on 15.12.2022 and out of 15 witnesses, 4 have been examined and
3 of 5
CRM-M-54076-2023 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040912
cross examination of 3, is yet to be conducted; never misused the
concession of interim bail; the trial is likely to take a considerable time,
thus further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right
enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of
Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the righty to a
speedy trial, thus, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to
be allowed.
9. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is
ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and
subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall
abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court
on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted
by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which, he is an accused,
or for commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse
his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and
mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and
shall not change the same till the conclusion of
the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner
seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same
shall be done only with prior intimation to the
learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the
4 of 5
CRM-M-54076-2023 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040912
same.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country
without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any
other condition, as deemed appropriate while
releasing the petitioner.
10. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of
the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation
of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
11. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations
made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would
not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial
would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
21.03.2024 JUDGE
ashok
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
