Maghar Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 19062 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Maghar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2024

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141994



 CRM-M-16076-2024 (O&M)                       - 1-


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH
203
                                                      CRM-M-16076-2024 (O&M)
                                                      Date of decision: 29.10.2024

Maghar Singh
                                                                       ....Petitioner
                                Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                      ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
                                 *****
Present : Mr. C.M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioner

       Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab
                              *****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.59, dated 17.04.2023, registered under

Sections 15, 25 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Dhanaula, District

Barnala.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for 1 year

and 6 months. His name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused

and the recovery of 8 kg Poppy Husk was effected from him. He alleges false

implication. The mandatory provisions of Section 42 of NDPS Act were not

complied with. No independent witness was joined at the time of recovery.

Charges were framed on 21.10.2023, however, only 1 out of 18 prosecution

witnesses has yet been examined. He was convicted in one case under the NDPS

Act, involving non-commercial quantity and his sentence has been suspended after

2 months thereof. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141994

CRM-M-16076-2024 (O&M) - 2-

Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2)

SCC 382.

3. Custody certificate dated 27.10.2024, filed by learned State counsel is

taken on record, as per which, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 6 months

and 3 days.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that pursuant to

the disclosure statement of co-accused, 8 kg of poppy husk has been recovered

from him. He is unable to controvert the submissions made regarding the stage of

the case and sentence of the petitioner being suspended in another case.

5. Heard.

6. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir

Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "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. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla

vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No.6690/2022 decided on

25.01.2023 observed that in case of long custody period, involving quantity

recovered to be of commercial nature, where the trial is yet to commence, though

charges had been framed, the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be

dispensed with. In the case of Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau

(2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, the Division Bench of this Court observed with regard to

achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. Similarly, in the case

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141994

CRM-M-16076-2024 (O&M) - 3-

of Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.)

No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon'ble the Supreme Court granted bail to

the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband,

considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no

likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In the case of Munasi Masih

vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, decided on 06.02.2023, this Court

granted bail to a first offender from whom commercial quantity of contraband had

been recovered and only 2 out of 13 PWs have been examined, by observing that

in view of delayed trial, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted to an

extent and the petitioner can be granted bail, keeping in mind the right to a speedy

trial as envisaged Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular

that the petitioner is in custody for last 1 year, 6 months and 3 days; sentence has

been suspended in another case; charges were framed on 21.10.2023, however,

only 1 out of 18 prosecution witnesses has been examined so far; the trial is likely

to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would be violative of his

right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of

Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial,

thus, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.

9. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered

to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the

satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being

required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141994

CRM-M-16076-2024 (O&M) - 4-

witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

10. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the

aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as

granted to the petitioner by this order.

11. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein

are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as

an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of

the aforesaid observations.

                                                          (AMAN CHAUDHARY)
                                                                JUDGE
29.10.2024
M.Kamra

      Whether speaking/reasoned                       :      Yes / No
      Whether reportable                              :      Yes / No




                                      4 of 4