Punjab-Haryana High Court
Varinder Singh @ Raju vs State Of Punjab on 4 November, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143089
CRM-M-50439-2024 #1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-50439-2024
Date of Decision:-04.11.2024
Varinder Singh @ Raju.
......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Satnam Singh Gill, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG Punjab.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The Prayer in this petition under section 483 BNSS is for the
grant of regular bail in case FIR No.72 dated 21.05.2022 under Sections 15,
25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Subsequently Section 29 NDPS Act,. 1985 was
added) registered at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala.
The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty a secret information was received that Barinder Singh @
Raju (petitioner) and Manga Singh (since granted the concession of bail vide
order dated 15.12.2023 in CRM-M-51907-2023) who were having an
Accent car bearing registration no.PB-03AX-8329 and Swift Car bearing
registration No.PB-13BD-7886 used to bring Poppy Husk from outside and
sell the same in the area of Dhanaula and Barnala. On that day both of them
had loaded Poppy Husk in their cars and were waiting to supply the same in
the area of Dhanaula town and its nearby villages. If a search was conducted
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143089
CRM-M-50439-2024 #2
they could be apprehended along with huge quantity of Poppy Husk. Based
on the aforesaid information the present FIR came to be registered.
Subsequently the aforementioned two accused were apprehended along with
Accent car and a recovery of 200 Kgs of Poppy Husk was effected from that
car.
During investigation Manga Singh disclosed that the Poppy
Husk recovered from him was to be delivered to Soni Singh @ Chamkaur
Singh and on the basis of the said disclosure statement Soni Singh @
Chamkaur was nominated as an accused in the present case under Section 29
of the NDPS Act, 1985. He was arrested on 26.05.2022 and suffered a
disclosure statement pursuant to which he got recovered 3 Kgs of Poppy
Husk on 27.05.2022.
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
seizure. In one other case bearing FIR No.24 dated 5.3.2021 under Sections
22B/61/85 NDPS Act, P.S. Sadar, Barnala the petitioner has been granted
the concession of bail vide order dated 17.08.2023 passed by Judge Special
Court, Barnala. As he was in custody since 21.05.2022 and only 01 out of
the 27 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,
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143089
CRM-M-50439-2024 #3
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.24 dated
5.3.2021 under Section 22B/61/85 NDPS P.S. Sadar, Barnala registered
against him in which he was granted the concession of bail. 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 21.05.2022 and only 01 out of the 27
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 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143089
CRM-M-50439-2024 #4
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 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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143089
CRM-M-50439-2024 #5
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 since
21.05.2022 and only 01 out of the 27 prosecution witnesses had been
examined so far. In the other case registered against him under the NDPS
Act he had been granted the concession of bail. 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.
9. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Varinder Singh @ Raju son of Sh.
Balwinder Singh 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143089
CRM-M-50439-2024 #6
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.1,00,000/- 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 )
JUDGE
November 04, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
