Punjab-Haryana High Court
Somdeep Singh Alias Sandeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142464
CRM-M-32273-2024 (O&M) 1
202 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-32273-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 29.10.2024
SOMDEEP SINGH @ SANDEEP SINGH
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
S
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rajinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner is seeking grant of regular bail in his second attempt
case bearing FIR No. 201 dated 09.10.2022 registered under Sections 22(c), 27,
61 and 85 of NDPS Act at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa.
2. FIR(supra) was registered on the basis of allegations of recovery
of 172 strips of Alprazolam tablets IP 0.5mg Alprasafe 0.5, each strip
containing 10 intoxicating tablets i.e. total 1720 tablets from a transparent
plastic envelope alleged to have been effected from the possession of the
petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that
petitioner is an HIV patient and 1720 intoxicating tablets have been implanted
upon him. Learned counsel further submits that mandatory safeguards as
provided under the NDPS Act have not been followed. At the time of recovery
of alleged contraband from the petitioner, no independent witness from the
vicinity has been joined, which creates serious doubt on the case set up by the
prosecution. Further there are several shortcomings and discrepancies in the
prosecution case due to non-fulfillment of the mandatory provisions. The
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142464
petitioner is behind the bars for more than 02 years and the first petition
seeking grant of regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn on 15.01.2024 and in
spite of passing of more than 02 years from registration of the FIR(supra), not
even a single prosecution witness has been examined so far and case of the
petitioner is covered by the ratio of laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
SLP 12788-2023 titled as Nandalal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State
of West Bangal and delay in conclusion of trial cannot be attributable to the
petitioner as he is in judicial custody and reliance in this regard has been placed
upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.
1202 of 2024 titled as Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Alius Vs. The State of
West Bengal, SLP(Crl.) No. 14970-2023 titled as Debrata Mondal Vs. State
of West Bengal, SLP(Crl.) No. 13169/2023 titled as Santarul Islam @ Santa
Vs. The State of West Bengal, SLP(Crl.) No. 8512/2023 titled as Indrajit
Mondal @ Piglu Vs. The State of West Bengal, SLP(Crl.) No. 14172/2023
titled as Narjul Islam @ Najbul Hoque Vs. The State of West Bengal,
Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal, SLP(Crl.)
No. 15284/2023 titled as Subhashri Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree Vs. The
State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 1200/2024 titled as Mithun Sk. &
Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal, Criminal Appeal No. 1415/2024 titled as
SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin SK. Vs. State of West Bengal, SLP(Crl.) No.
12670/2023 titled as Indadul Shah Vs. The State of West Bengal, Hanef
Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh Vs. Union of India, SLP(Crl.) No. 16663/2023
titled as Ripon Seikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal, Nijam Sheikh @ Md.
Nijam SK @ MD Nizam SK Vs. The State of West Bengal, SLP(Crl.) No.
15668/2023 titled as Moidul Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal, SLP(Crl.)
No. 2354/2024 titled as Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi Vs. The State of West
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142464
Bengal, SLP(Crl.) No. 15496/2023 titles as Saddam Hossain Vs. State of
West Bengal, SLP(Crl.) No. 6046/2024 titled as Bijon SK @ Golam Murselim
Vs. The State of West Bengal and Criminal Appeal No(s) 245/2020 @
SLP(Crl.) No. 8823/2019 titled as Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs. The State of
West Bengal.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel filed the custody certificate,
which is taken on record and opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for
the petitioner on the ground that petitioner was found to be in illegal possession
of contraband, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity and as
such, in view of the provisions contained under Section 37 of NDPS Act, the
petitioner is not entitled to any relief by this Court.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the record, it transpires that petitioner is behind the bars since 12.10.2022 i.e.
for 02 years and 14 days as on 26.10.2024. Out of total 11 prosecution
witnesses, none has been examined so far. Culpability, if any, would be
determined at the time of the trial.
7. The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to ensure
speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that right to
speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial
would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e.
everything starting with the accusation against the accused and expiring with
the final verdict of the last Court.
8. It has further been held in law that if a person is deprived of his
liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation
would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142464
of India. The procedure so prescribed must ensure speedy trial for
determination of the guilt of such person. Some amount of denial of personal
liberty cannot be avoided, but if the period of deprivation pending trial
becomes excessively long, the fairness guaranteed by Article 21 of the
Constitution of India would come into play.
9. In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under Article 21
of the Constitution of India on the following decision:- Akhtari Bi Vs. State of
M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh Vs. State of
Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of
Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.,
(1978) 1 SCC 579, Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 10 SCC
463; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh Vs. State
of U.P. (2JJ.) and Fazal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 752.
10. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the
petitioner-Somdeep Singh @ Sandeep Singh is ordered to be released on
regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned.
11. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed as expression of
opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the trial Court shall proceed
without being prejudiced by observations of this Court.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
October 29, 2024 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
