Jagdev Singh @ Mana vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 9448 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jagdev Singh @ Mana vs State Of Punjab on 2 May, 2024

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                          Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060713



 CRM-M-20782-2024                  #1#                       2024:PHHC:060713


        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.


                                                           CRM-M-20782-2024

                                                   Date of Decision:-02.05.2024

Jagdev Singh @ Mana.

                                                                    ......Petitioner.
                                         Vs.

State of Punjab.

                                                                  ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-   Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the Petitioner.

            Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.

                                  ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The Prayer in this third petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is for

the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.38 dated 24.06.2020 under Sections

22 and 29 of NDPS Act registered at Police Station Bajakhana, District

Faridkot, Punjab.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Jagdev Singh @ Mana

(petitioner) was apprehended with 40,000 intoxicant tablets.

During the course of interrogation he disclosed the name of

Jaswinder Singh @ Chhinda, who was arrested and the recovery of 480

intoxicant tablets came to be effected from him.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he has been

falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of Sections

42 and 50 of the NDPS Act have not been complied with in their proper

perspective. No independent witness was joined at the time of search and

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060713

CRM-M-20782-2024 #2# 2024:PHHC:060713

seizure. In one other case bearing FIR No.244 dated 06.11.2014 under

Sections 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, P.S. Talwandi Sabo the petitioner had

already been convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 10 years

vide judgment dated 08.11.2017. As he was in custody since 27.06.2020 and

only 06 out of the 12 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the

trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon and

therefore, he 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. The learned State counsel on the other hand contends that the

petitioner is a habitual offender with one other case bearing FIR No.244

dated 06.11.2014 under Sections 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985, P.S. Talwandi

Sabo registered against him in which he was convicted. Therefore, in view

of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner was

not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner

was in custody since 27.06.2020, only 06 out of the 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 on

01.08.2022 held as under:-

"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060713

CRM-M-20782-2024 #3# 2024:PHHC:060713

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."

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

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060713

CRM-M-20782-2024 #4# 2024:PHHC:060713

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; chargesheet 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, 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. Admittedly, in 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan' (supra) and

'Hasanujjaman & others' (supra), the accused therein had been granted the

concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:060713

CRM-M-20782-2024 #5# 2024:PHHC:060713

approximately one and a half years of custody.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since

27.06.2020 and only 06 of the 12 prosecution witnesses had been examined

so far. In the other case registered against him under the NDPS Act he has

been convicted. 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 speedy trial and

the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail.

10. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Jagdev Singh @ Mana son of Sh.

Angrej Sigh 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.

11. 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.

12. 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.

13. The petition stands disposed of.

                                                   ( JASJIT SINGH BEDI )
                                                        JUDGE
May 02, 2024
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                        Yes/No
        Whether reportable                               Yes/No




                                          5 of 5