Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ankit Sihag Alias Gora Alias Ankit Siag vs State Of Punjab on 2 May, 2024
Author: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Bench: Jasgurpreet Singh Puri
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060969
CRM-M-13986-2024 -1-
2024:PHHC:060969
205
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-13986-2024
Date of decision: 02.05.2024
ANKIT SIHAG ALIAS GORA ALIAS ANKIT SIAG
...Petitioner
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. P. S. Bindra, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab.
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. The present is a second petition filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.183 dated 14.11.2022, under Section 22(c)/61/85 of the NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station City-1, Mansa, District Mansa, Punjab.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in
custody from 14.11.2022, which is more than 1 year and 5 months and charges
in the present case were framed by the learned trial Court on 13.03.2023 but the
trial is not progressing as only 8 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He
further submitted that it is a case where the allegations against the petitioner
were with regard to recovery of 4 kgs. and 928 grams of Codeine Phosphate,
which although falls in the category of commercial quantity but considering the
custody of the petitioner and the stage of the trial, he may be considered for the
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060969
2024:PHHC:060969
grant of regular bail. He has also brought to the notice of this Court that earlier
also the petitioner had filed a regular bail petition before this Court, which was
dismissed on 16.11.2023 vide Annexure P-5, which is more than 5 months ago
and thereafter, no progress has taken place in the trial and rather one
prosecution witness has been given up by the prosecution but no prosecution
witness has been examined. He further submitted that now in view of the
extended custody of the petitioner, the second successive bail petition would be
maintainable. He also submitted that in fact the petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case because of the reason that earlier he was involved
in one more case under the NDPS Act.
3. He has referred to a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Satender Kumar Antil versus Central Bureau of Investigation and another,
[2022 (10) SCC 51] and contended that when there is a long custody, which is
not attributable to the accused and the delay has been caused by the
prosecution, then Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India are
affected.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Adeshwar Singh Pannu, AAG, Punjab
submitted on instructions from ASI Avtar Singh that it is correct that the
petitioner is in custody for more than 1 year and 5 months and after the framing
of the charges on 13.03.2023, which is more than 1 year and 1 month ago, only
8 prosecution witnesses have been examined and after the dismissal of the
earlier regular bail petition, no prosecution witness has been examined. He
further submitted that as per the interlocutory orders, although the Presiding
Officer was not holding Court but the prosecution witnesses were also not
present and on one date, the petitioner was not produced before the Court and
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060969
2024:PHHC:060969
that was the reason as to why adjournments had taken place. He also submitted
that the petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act. He has
however opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that
since the confiscated quantity falls in the category of commercial quantity, the
prayer of the petitioner is hit by the bar contained under Section 37 of the
NDPS Act.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. It is a case where the petitioner is in custody for more than 1 year
and 5 months and when he earlier filed a regular bail petition before this Court,
the same was dismissed by this Court on 16.11.2023 vide Annexure P-5, which
is more than 5 months ago and as per the learned counsel for the parties, no
progress has taken place in the trial and rather one prosecution witness has been
given up by the prosecution. It has been so stated by the learned State counsel
that the prosecution witnesses did not appear because the Presiding Officer was
not holding Court. The petitioner is stated to be involved in one more case
under the NDPS Act but that itself cannot become a ground for denial of regular
bail to the petitioner. The delay in the trial is not attributable to the petitioner in
the present case and therefore, in view of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court and in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, the bar
contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply to the petitioner.
7. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner shall
be released on regular bail, if not required in any other case, subject to
furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060969
2024:PHHC:060969
8. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case and is meant for the purpose of
deciding the present petition only.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
02.05.2024 JUDGE
Chetan Thakur
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
