Jaspreet Singh Alias Baggi vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 20592 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 20592 P&H
Judgement Date : 20 November, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Jaspreet Singh Alias Baggi vs State Of Punjab on 20 November, 2024

                                   Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151778



CRM-M-20942
      20942-2024                                                             1

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH

(215)                                           CRM-M-20942-2024
                                                Date of Decision : 20.11.2024


Jaspreet Singh @ Baggi                                       ...Petitioner

                                       Versus

State of Punjab                                              ...Respondent



CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present:      Mr. Priyanshu Kamra,, Advocate
              for the petitioner.

              Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab.

                  ****

KULDEEP TIWARI,
        TIWARI J.(Oral)

1. This is the second petition, filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., Cr.P.C.

wherein, the petitioner prays for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. No.101

dated 31.05.2023 (Annexure P-1), P under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985,

registered at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib, Punjab.

2. The earlier bail application, preferred by the petitioner was

dismissed as withdrawn, by drawing an order dated 05.12.2023 05.12.2023,, passed by

this Court.

3. On asking for the relief (supra), learned counsel for the

petitioner submits, submits that since the dismissal of the earlier bail application,

there is no progress in the trial, as only two prosecution witnesses have been

examined, out of total 17 witnesses, as cited by the prosecution, whereas, five

prosecution witnesses have been given up. He further submits that the

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151778

CRM-M-20942

petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 01 year and 05 months, as

on today, and he has clean antecedents.

4. In the instant case, the petitioner was caught carrying 40 tablets

of apiz 0.5 (etizolam salt), and the total weight comes out to be 4.8 grams, grams

which undisputedly falls under the ambit of commercial quantity, as more

than 2.5 grams quantity, quantity falls under the ambit of commercial, as per the

schedule attached with the NDPS Act.

5. Though the learned counsel for or the petitioner had addressed the

arguments on merits of the instant case, to the effect effect, that some of the

mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, has not been complied with.

However, this Court, refrains itself from making any observation on such

submissions.

ons.

6. Learned State counsel, on instructions imparted to him from the

Investigating Officer concerned, opposed the grant of concession of regular

bail to the petitioner, on the ground, ground that the recovery effected in the instant

case, falls under the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, the rigor of

Section 37 of the NDPS Act, comes into operation.

7. Learned State counsel has also placed on record the custody

certificate dated 19.11.2024, qua the petitioner, today in the Court. The same

is taken on record.

8. It is not in dispute that only two prosecution witnesses have been

examined, out of total 17 witnesses, witnesses, and five prosecution witnesses have been

given up, whereas, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year,

05 months and 17 days, as on today, today, and has clean antecedents. So far as, the

rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is concerned, this Court, in a number of

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151778

CRM-M-20942

judgments has already observed that long incarceration would dilute the rigor

of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

9. This Court finds vigor from the judgment of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in "Rabi Prakash Versus The State of Odisha", Special

Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169 of 2023, wherein, the Court has also

discussed the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS Act Act, in such like cases of long

custody. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment contained in para

No.4 is reproduced reprod as under:-

"4.

4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates again against st the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."

10. In the recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 (3)

RCR (Criminal), 494, 494 it has been specifically held that the right to speedy trial

of offenders facing criminal charges is implicit in the broad sweep eep and content

of Article rticle 21. The relevant extract of the same reads as under:

under:-

"18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents,

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:151778

CRM-M-20942

juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a ppast ast and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.

19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned oncerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.

20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over over-arching arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be bru brushed shed aside lightly, howsoever ever stringent the penal law may be.