Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurmeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 14 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064695
CRM-M No.13871 of 2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
202
CRM-M No.13871 of 2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 14.05.2024
Gurmeet Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: Mr. J.S. Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Surya Kumar, AAG, Punjab.
NAMIT KUMAR J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in this 2nd petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in
short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.113 dated 19.06.2020, registered under
Section 21/61 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Sadar Ferozepur,
District Ferozepur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the
allegations, the FIR has been registered on the basis of secret
information that the petitioner and his co-accused namely Rukmandeep
Singh, Rajinder Singh and Arshdeep Singh, are indulged in the business
of sale and purchase of Heroin. Later on, the accused persons were
apprehended from a Scorpio car bearing registration No.PB30-R-9170,
driven by co-accused of the petitioner namely Rukmandeep Singh and
on search, recovery of 70 gms of Heroin was effected from the present
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064695
petitioner - Gurmeet Singh whereas recovery of 80 gms of Heroin was
effected from the co-accused of the petitioner namely Arshdeep Singh
along with alleged drug money of Rs.2,60,000/-.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present
case. He further submits that the alleged recovery has already been
effected from the petitioner and he is no more required for further
investigation. He also contends that the petitioner is in custody for the
last 03 years, 10 months and 12 days.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the
co-accused namely Rajinder Singh @ Raja and Rukmandeep Singh @
Rukman, have already been granted the concession of regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 01.03.2024, passed in CRM-M Nos.3554
and 17251 of 2023. Lastly, he submits that the investigation in the
present case is complete as challan stands presented and charges have
been framed and out of 20 prosecution witnesses, only 08 PWs have
been examined and the conclusion of the trial is likely to take
considerable time to conclude and no fruitful purpose would be served
by detaining the petitioner behind the bars.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the State while placing on
record the custody certificate dated 13.05.2024 as well as the status
report by way of affidavit of Sukhwinder Singh, PPS, Deputy
Superintendent of Police (City), Ferozepur, has opposed the prayer for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064695
involved in some other cases also, therefore, he does not deserve the
concession of regular bail.
6. Refuting the above contention of the learned State counsel,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is on bail in other
cases. He further relies upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
"Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another", 2012
(2) SCC 382, to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present
case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail
application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that
the petitioner is involved in other cases. The relevant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"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."
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
8. Without commenting anything on merits of the case,
considering the fact that the co-accused of the petitioner have already
been granted the concession of regular bail and the fact that the
petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years, 10 months and 12 days;
investigation is complete; challan stands presented; charges have been
framed; out of total 20 prosecution witnesses only 08 PWs have been
examined so far and conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:064695
time to conclude, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed
to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, the petitioner shall remain bound by
the following conditions: -
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence
oral or documentary during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar
to the one alleged in the present case.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any with
the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his mobile number to the
police authorities and shall not change his mobile
number without prior permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay
the trial.
9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and
those which may be imposed by the trial Court, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail of the
petitioner.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
JUDGE
14.05.2024
yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
