Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh Alias Satta vs State Of Punjab on 22 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138171
CRM-M-34213-2024 1
233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-34213-2024
Decided on : 22.10.2024
Satnam Singh @ Satta
. . . Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
. . . Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present : Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG Punjab
****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been
invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.62 dated
26.03.2024 registered under Sections 22, 29 of NDPS Act registered at Police
Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.
2. The facts of the present case are that on 26.03.2024, the police party
was performing regular patrolling duty. The petitioner and co-accused were
standing on side of road, who on seeing the police party took out polythene bags
from their pockets and threw them. The petitioner and co-accused were
apprehended who disclosed their names and on inspecting the polythene bags 300
intoxicant tablets were found in polythene bag thrown by the petitioner and 400
intoxicant tables were found in polythene bag thrown by the co-accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138171
falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged recovery from the petitioner
is only 300 intoxicant capsules which amounts to 90.6 gms as recovery is to be
considered independent of the recovery effected from co-accused and falls under
the non commercial quantity. He further submits that the petitioner was involved in
four cases under NDPS Act/Excise Act, in which he is on bail. Learned counsel
has placed upon the order dated 05.05.2023 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in CRM-M-21794-2023 titled as Sandeep Singh vs. State of Punjab and
he further submits that co-accused have been granted benefit of regular bail vide
order dated 15.07.2024 passed in CRM-M-16352-2024 titled as Pritma Devi alias
Pratima Devi vs. State of Punjab and order dated 08.08.2024 passed in CRM-M-
37379-2024 titled as Bablu alias Bablu Kumar Vishwakarma vs. State of Punjab.
4. Per contra, earned State counsel has filed the custody certificate dated
21.10.2024 in Court today, which is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the
petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 06 months and 23 days and there are
four more criminal case registered against him. Moreover, on instructions he
submits that charges were framed on 26.09.2024 and out of 08 prosecution
witnesses, none has been examined till date. However in view of the serious
allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of regular
bail.
5. Heard.
6. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is
involved in four more criminal cases, reference is placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of
the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138171
application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the
petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected.
In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
accused in the case in which he has been charged and other
circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction
of the Court etc."
7. Regarding recovery of 700 capsules made from both the accused,
reliance can be placed upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 7 SCC 550, wherein it
was observed that when two accused are found carrying contraband, the quantity
of contraband carried by both the both accused is not to be added to bring it within
the meaning of commercial quantity. Relevant part of the judgment is reproduced
below:
"7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged only one
contention in support of the present appeal. He contended that the
High Court fell into an error in taking the total quantity of the
offending substances recovered form the two accused jointly and
holding that the said quantity was more than the commercial
quantity, warranting punishment under Section 21(c) of the NDPS
Act. He contended that as far as the appellant is concerned, the High
Court erred by assuming that there was criminal conspiracy within
the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS Act, and erroneously
proceeded under the said section. The High Court fell into a further
error of assuming that because Section 29 was applicable, the total
quantity of opium recovered was 920 grams plus 4.250 kgs. The
counsel urged that because of this error the High Court took the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138171
wrong view that the total recovered opium was of "commercial
quantity" and, therefore, attracted Section 21(c) of the NDPS Act.
8. Although, at first blush, the argument of the learned counsel
appeared attractive, on careful appreciation of the facts on record
we are satisfied that the High Court judgment is fully justified and
needs to be upheld. It is true that the High Court proceeded on the
footing that there was a criminal conspiracy between the appellant
and the deceased, Danabhai Virabhai Rabari. In our view, however,
there was no warrant for this conclusion at all as there is no
evidence to suggest that there was any such abetment and/or
criminal conspiracy within the meaning of Section 29 of the NDPS
Act. The appellant and Danabhai Virabhai Rabari were found
together, but individually carrying the recovered substances. Hence,
it was not possible for the High Court to take the view that Section
29 was attracted.
•9. The High Court was justified in its conclusion that the appellant
could not have been punished under Sections 17 and 18 of the NDPS
Act."
8. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be
established during the course of the trial. The quantity recovered from the
petitioner falls under the non-commercial quantity. The petitioner has undergone
an actual custody of 06 months and 23 days. Out of 08 prosecution witnesses, none
has been examined. The trial of the case will take considerable time and no useful
purpose will be served by detaining the accused in custody.
9. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may
prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner
shall also abide by the following conditions:-
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:138171
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed,
unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts
of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
11. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression
of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed
independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the
purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
October 22, 2024
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
