Arashdeep Singh @ Arashi vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 19069 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Arashdeep Singh @ Arashi vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2024

Author: Kirti Singh

Bench: Kirti Singh

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142260




CRM-M-52829-2024                                                               1

239

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                                     CRM-M-52829-2024
                                                     Date of Decision: 29.10.2024

Arashdeep Singh @ Arashi
                                                                         ...Petitioner

                                Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                       ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH

Present:-.   Mr. Arihant Goyal, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. R.S. Thind, DAG 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.0025 dated

10.06.2021, under Sections 21, 25, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police

Station Mehal Kalan, District Barnala.

2. The facts of the present case are that on 10.06.2021, at about 4:00

p.m., SI Gurbachan Singh and other police officials received secret information

regarding the involvement of Arashdeep Singh @ Arshi (petitioner) and Amritpal

Singh in drug smuggling. A ruqa was dispatched, leading to the registration of FIR.

Following the registration, the investigation was assigned to SI Satnam Singh.

While conducting further investigation, they spotted two individuals on a

motorcycle and upon noticing the police, the pillion rider (Amritpal Singh) jumped

off, attempting to fled from the spot but was apprehended, while the motorcycle

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142260

rider (Arashdeep Singh) turned back and escaped. The police apprehended

Amritpal Singh, who revealed his accomplice's identity as Arashdeep Singh. A

subsequent search of Amritpal's small black bag yielded 350 grams of white

powder, which was later confirmed to be heroin.

During interrogation, Amritpal Singh named Gurdeep Singh, alias

Manna, as another accomplice involved in the drug trade. On 14.06.2021, Vishesh

Kumar was also implicated. Further investigation led to the arrest of Iqbal Singh,

alias Babbu, on 15.06.2021, who was found in possession of 30 grams of

intoxicant powder. On 23.06.2021, Arashdeep Singh was apprehended, and his

interrogation resulted in the nomination of Vijay Singh @ Ghuggi, as an additional

accused. Vijay Singh was arrested on 24.06.2021, with a recovery of 380 grams of

heroin.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the

petitioner has been nominated on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused

Amritpal Singh Johal, who was allegedly apprehended with 350 grams of

intoxicant powder by the police on 10.06.2021. Learned counsel further submits

that even though the challan was presented way back on 03.12.2021 and charges

were framed on 20.04.2022, the trial Court had failed to make much progress as

only 05 prosecution witnesses out of 19 prosecution witnesses have been examined

till date. Hence, there was no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future.

He further submits that the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 03 years

and 04 months and five more case are registered against him. He further submits

that similarly situated co-accused have been granted the concession of regular bail

by this Court vide order dated 07.11.2023 passed in CRM-M-45746-2021, order

dated 14.09.2021 passed in CRM-M-28877-2021, order dated 11.11.2023 passed

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142260

in CRM-M-18476-2022, order dated 07.08.2023 passed in CRM-M-42068-2021,

order dated 29.01.2024 passed in CRM-M-43924-2023 and order dated 29.11.2022

passed in CRM-M-25532-2022.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody

certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 03 years and 04 months

and there are five more case registered against him. Charges were framed on

20.04.2022 and out of 19 prosecution witnesses, 05 prosecution witnesses have

been examined. He, however, submits that in view of strict rigors of Section 37 of

the NDPS Act and serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the

concession of regular bail.

5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

6. The charges were framed on 20.04.2022 and out of total 19

prosecution witness, only 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date.

The petitioner has undergone actual custody of 03 years and 04 months. Further

detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose and will be violation

of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is

against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the

judgment of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and

another", (2018) 3 SCC 22.

7. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not

consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period

may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly

long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and

another", 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142260

flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of

investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.

8. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be

established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the charges have been

framed and only five prosecution witness have been examined till date. Therefore,

this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve

any purpose.

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:-

(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 she 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

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142260

independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the

purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.

                                                              (KIRTI SINGH)
29.10.2024                                                      JUDGE
reena
             Whether speaking/reasoned                       Yes/No
             Whether reportable                              Yes/No




                                         5 of 5