Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovepreet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 13 November, 2024
Author: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Bench: Anupinder Singh Grewal
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148910-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
286 CRA-D-796-2024(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 13.11.2024
LOVEPREET SINGH ... Appellant (s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr. Nandan Jindal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Harmandeep Singh Sullar, Senior DAG, Punjab.
****
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL)
CRM-22320-2024
This application has been preferred for condonation of delay of
45 days in preferring the appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant submits that the
applicant/appellant is a poor person and was in custody while there is no other
person in her family who could pursue litigation on her behalf.
3. Heard.
4. The appeal against an order rejecting the application for bail is
provided under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
The period of limitation which is prescribed therein is 30 days which can be
condoned up to 90 days with sufficient cause. The appeal in the instant case
has been preferred after 45 days. It has been held by the Division Bench of the
Bombay High Court in the case of Faizal Hasamali Mirza versus State of
Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC (online) Bom 1936, that the period of
30 days prescribed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148910-DB
Act, 2008 would be directory as the right to appeal is one of the essential
component of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which guarantees
protection of life and personal liberty. It has been held that in case the delay is
not condoned then it would deprive the undertrial the right of appeal which is
provided by the Statute which impinges on the life and liberty of the undertrial
as enshrined in the Constitution of India. It was held as under: -
"(i) that the Appellate Courts have the power to
condone delay beyond the 90 days period, despite the
language of the 2nd proviso to Section 21(5) of the NIA
Act and that this can be done by virtue of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, the applicability of which is not
excluded under the provisions of the NIA Act. Thus, an
application seeking to condone delay beyond 90 days in
filing an appeal against the judgment, sentence, order, not
being an interlocutory order, passed by a Special Court is
maintainable, on sufficient cause being shown;
(ii) that the word `shall' in the 2nd proviso to sub-
section (5) of Section 21, be read down, to read as `may',
and hence, directory in nature."
5. In the instant case, the applicant/appellant was in custody as an
undertrial. The delay appears to be unintentional and not deliberate. It would,
therefore, be in the interest of justice, if the appeal is heard and decided on
merits. Consequently, the application is allowed and delay of 45 days in
preferring the appeal is condoned.
MAIN CASE
The appellant has challenged the impugned order dated -
02.03.2024 whereby his application for bail has been declined.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148910-DB
2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has
been arraigned as an accused on the statement of the co-accused-Baljeet Kaur
@ Sukhi (mother of the appellant). It is alleged that two accused namely
Deepak and Divanshu @ Guddu had stayed in house of co-accused Baljeet
Kaur @ Sukhi and the appellant from 29.04.2022 to 07.05.2022 and
thereafter the appellant had dropped them to Jalandhar in car bearing No.DL-
10-CL-1969 belonging to the appellant and the said car was dropped by the
appellant at Jalandhar itself and was recovered on the basis of disclosure
statement of the appellant. He has been challaned under Section 307, 212,
216, 120-B IPC, under Sections 16, 18, 18B, 19, 20, 23 of UAPA Act, under
Sections 3 and 6 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and Sections 25/54/59 of
Arms Act. There is another case under Section 25 of Arms Act against the
appellant. He submits that even assuming that the two co-accused had stayed
at his house there is no cogent material to indicate that the appellant was
aware of the unlawful activities of the co-accused. The applicant has
undergone an actual sentence of over 02 years and 05 months approximately.
3. Learned State counsel, while referring to the affidavit filed by the
respondent, submits that the applicant/appellant was arraigned as an accused
on the statement of the co-accused Baljeet Kaur @ Sukhi. Two of the co-
accused had been harboured by her and the appellant (son) as they had stayed
at their residence. He, upon instructions from SI Gurpreet Singh, submits that
the applicant/appellant has used an application namely 'Zangi' and it was not
possible to have the record of the telephonic conversations he had with the co-
accused. He also submits that the location of the phone indicates that the
applicant/appellant along with others was present at the same place and time
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148910-DB
but in response to query of this Court, he submits that there are no call records
that the other co-accused have actually spoken to him
4. Heard.
5. The applicant/appellant is accused in FIR No.236 dated 9.5.2022.
It is alleged that the applicant had harboured two co-accused. A bare reading
of the affidavit filed by the respondent indicates that Lovepreet Singh had
been arrested on 29.6.2022 and the car, which was used by the shooter, was
recovered on his demarcation. The accused-Nishan Singh had left both the
shooters namely Deepak and Divanshu along with his brother-in-law,
Anantdeep Singh in the car at the house of the applicant/appellant on
28.4.2022. Deepak and Divanshu were alleged to have given a gold ring to the
applicant/appellant through Nishan Singh and his brother-in-law, Anantdeep
Singh. The gold ring is stated to have been recovered but the particulars as to
when and where it was purchased from are not forthcoming. There does not
seem to be any identification of the gold ring. The applicant has undergone an
actual sentence of 02 years and 05 months approximately and is not involved
in any other criminal case. We are conscious of the fact that the provisions of
UAPA are stringent and bail could be granted if there are no reasonable
grounds to believe that the allegations against the accused are prima facie
true. At the same time, it is necessary to carefully scrutinise the material
against the appellant. The afore-noted material against the applicant/appellant
at this stage appears to be insufficient to indicate her involvement in the
commission of the offence. We, therefore, have no hesitation to hold that we
are of the considered view that there are no reasonable grounds at this stage to
believe that the allegations against the applicant/appellant are prima facie true.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:148910-DB
6. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated
02.03.2024 is set aside. The applicant/appellant shall be released on bail
subject to his furnishing requisite bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned
Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
7. These observations are only for deciding the appeal and shall not
be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
8. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
13.11.2024 (LAPITA BANERJI)
Prince JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
5 of 5
