Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
2024:PHHC:041906
CRM-M-13887-2024 -1-
207 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13887-2024
Date of Decision : March 22, 2024
Deepak Kumar .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Saroha, AAG, Punjab.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. (Oral)
The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is
for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 71 dated 16.03.2019 under
Section 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and under Section 37 IPC registered at
Police Station Dera Bassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.
2. The brief facts of the case are that Deepak Kumar-petitioner
came to be apprehended with 125 Pheniraminee Malaeate Injection IP Avil
injections, 75 injections of Buprenorphine Injection IP Bupine and 50
injections of Buprenorphine Injection IP Leegesic.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory
provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied
2024:PHHC:041906
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
for the last 01 year 08 months and 11 days and only 04 out of 12 prosecution
witnesses had been examined so far, the trial of the present case was not
likely to be concluded anytime soon. Therefore, the petitioner 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 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.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that
commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner.
Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that
the petitioner was a first time offender, in custody for the last 01 year 08
months and 11 days and only 04 out of 12 prosecution witnesses had been
examined so far.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided
2024:PHHC:041906
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 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."
2024:PHHC:041906
7. 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. The investigation is complete; charge-sheet 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,
2024:PHHC:041906
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)
8. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody
for the last 01 year 08 months and 11 days and only 04 out of 12 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
2024:PHHC:041906
speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of
bail.
9. Thus, without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and petitioner-Deepak Kumar son of Raj Kumar 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
12. The petition stands disposed of.
( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
March 22, 2024 JUDGE
satish
Whether speaking/reasoned : YES / NO
Whether reportable : YES / NO
