Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh vs State Of Haryana on 18 November, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149904
CRM-M-44014-2024 #1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-44014-2024
Date of Decision:-18.11.2024
Ramesh.
......Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kotla, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ashok Chaudhary, Addl. AG Haryana.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The Prayer in this second petition under section 483 BNSS
Cr.PC is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.73 dated 10.03.2023
under Sections 20 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station
Quilla, Panipat, District Panipat.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty, secret information was received that a person travelling in a
car bearing No.HP-34A-8819 was carrying Ganja leaves and would be
coming to Panipat to sell the same. A Nakabandi was set up and the car was
stopped. The driver of the car disclosed his name as Ramesh (petitioner).
From the said vehicle 45 kgs.400 grams of Ganja leaves came to be
recovered. The arrested accused Ramesh (petitioner) disclosed that one Aarif
(granted bail vide order dated 01.12.2023 passed in CRM-M-59471-2023)
had supplied the same to him.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149904
CRM-M-44014-2024 #2
The accused Aarif who was in custody filed an application
dated 10.07.2023 for interim bail for one month on medical grounds. During
verification, the medical records allegedly issued by Dr. Deepak, CHC,
Shamli, U.P. attached with the application for interim bail were found to be
forged on the basis of enquiry conducted by the Investigating Officer in
which the statement of Dr. Deepak had been recorded. The application for
grant of interim bail was dismissed by the Court of A.S.J., Panipat vide order
dated 17.07.2023. Thereafter, Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC were added in
the case.
Ashok Arora, Advocate appearing for the accused Aarif was
joined in the investigation who disclosed that the forged medical documents
had been given to him by the one Aarij (since granted bail vide order dated
06.12.2023 passed in CRM-M-52142-2023) and accordingly the statement
under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of Ashok Arora, Advocate was recorded.
On 15.07.2023, Aarij was joined in the investigation and was
arrested. He disclosed that he had got prepared the forged medical
certificates through Dr. Sanjay Verma.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner 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. As he was a first-time offender, in custody since
10.03.2023 and none of the 23 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
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149904
CRM-M-44014-2024 #3
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, more so when the co-accused of the petitioner have
been granted the concession of bail.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel has filed Status
report by way of affidavit dated 15.11.2024 of Mr. Satish Kumar, HPS,
Deputy Superintendent of Police, HQ, Panipat in the court today, which is
taken on record. While referring to the same he contends that commercial
quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner. 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 is a first time offender, in custody since 10.03.2023 and none of
the 23 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and that the co-
accused of the petitioner had already been granted bail.
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.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149904
CRM-M-44014-2024 #4
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 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 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149904
CRM-M-44014-2024 #5
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
approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time
offenders as is borne out from the orders.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since
10.03.2023 and none of the 23 prosecution witnesses have been examined so
far. He is also a first-time offender with no other case registered against him.
In this situation, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:149904
CRM-M-44014-2024 #6
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-Ramesh son of Sh. Roop Chand 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.50,000/- 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
November 18, 2024
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
