Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pawan Kumar @ Sahota vs State Of Punjab on 9 May, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064785
CRM-M-20420-2024(O&M) -1- 2024:PHHC:064785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-20420-2024(O&M)
Date of Decision: 09.05.2024
Pawan Kumar @ Sahota
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present: Ms. Ayna Vasudeva, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present is a third petition filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.103 dated 17.07.2021, under Sections 21, 25, 27A, 29 of NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station STF, Phase-4, Mohali, District SAS Nagar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner is in custody for 2 ½ years i.e. from 05.11.2021. She submitted
that it is a case where no recovery has been effected from the petitioner and
as per the allegations, the petitioner had supplied heroin to the co-accused
but recovery was effected from one Sarabjit Singh @ Sabi who has already
been extended the benefit of regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-20085-
2024 on 30.04.2024. She submitted that from the co-accused there was
recovery of 417 grams of heroin but there was no connection of the
petitioner with the aforesaid co-accused and he has been falsely implicated
by the police only because of the fact that he was earlier involved in one
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064785
CRM-M-20420-2024(O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:064785
another case under the NDPS Act. She further submitted that the aforesaid
co-accused has been granted bail by this Court primarily on the ground of
unnecessary delay of trial at the hands of the prosecution. She submitted
that it is a case where the learned trial Court framed charges on 22.03.2022
which is more than 2 years and 1 month ago but till date only two
prosecution witnesses have been examined and that too only formal
witnesses and no material witness has been examined in the present case.
She submitted that the police party had apprehended the other co-accused
which consisted of number of police officials including one ASI Mohammad
Sadiq and the aforesaid ASI Mohammad Sadiq has rather been given up by
the prosecution and those two witnesses who have been examined were only
formal witnesses and there is no justification as to why for more than two
years after the framing of charges, the prosecution witnesses who are none
other but the police officials did not care to depose before the trial Court.
She submitted that this Court while referring to the judgments of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Versus Central Bureau of
Investigation and another [2022 (10) SCC 51], Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain
Versus State (NCT of Delhi) [2023 AIR (SC) 1648], Dheeraj Kumar Shukla
v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 918 and Rabi Prakash
Versus State of Odisha, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.4169 of 2023 had
granted bail to the other co-accused and the petitioner is not only at parity with
the aforesaid co-accused but he is rather at a better footing because there was
no recovery effected from the petitioner and therefore, on parity as well, the
petitioner may be considered for the grant of regular bail.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, learned AAG,
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064785
CRM-M-20420-2024(O&M) -3- 2024:PHHC:064785
Punjab has submitted that so far as the custody of the petitioner is
concerned, the same is correct and so far as the parity of the petitioner with
the other co-accused is concerned, the same also cannot be disputed. He has
however submitted that the petitioner is involved in other cases and he has
already been convicted in one case under the NDPS Act and therefore, the
petitioner to that extent will not be entitled for the grant of regular bail.
4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
5. It is a case where the petitioner has already faced incarceration
for 2½ years and the charges in the present case were framed on 22.03.2022
which is almost 2 years and 1 month ago but till date the material witnesses
have not been examined, as per learned counsel for the parties. The other co-
accused namely, Sarabjit Singh @ Sabi has already been extended the
benefit of regular bail by this Court in CRM-M-20085-2024 on 30.04.2024
and it appears that the petitioner is not only at parity with the other co-
accused but he is at a better footing. The mere fact that the petitioner was
convicted in earlier case cannot become a ground for denial of bail to the
petitioner considering the totality and circumstances of the present case.
6. There had been no recovery from the petitioner in the present
case and therefore, the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will
not apply in the present case.
7. Therefore, considering the totality of facts and circumstances
of the present case, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant regular bail to
the petitioner.
8. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner
shall be released on regular bail subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064785
CRM-M-20420-2024(O&M) -4- 2024:PHHC:064785
satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, if not
required in any other case.
9. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as
an expression of opinion on merits of the case and is meant for the purpose
of deciding the present petition only.
09.05.2024 (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
rakesh JUDGE
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
