Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh vs State Of Punjab on 5 September, 2024
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116361
(203) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-7179-2024 (O & M)
Date of Decision: 05.09.2024
Rakesh
... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. Vivek Kathuria, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in this third petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for
the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.22 dated 06.02.2022 under
Sections 21 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City-Kurali,
SAS Nagar.
2. Petitioner-Rakesh was apprehended with 300 grams of heroin.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of
Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with in their
proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the time of search
and seizure. He contends that the petitioner is involved in one other case
registered against him bearing FIR No.118/2020 dated 01.01.2020 under
Section 15 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Central Sector 17, Chandigarh. In
the present case, as the petitioner was in custody since 06.02.2022 and only
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116361
04 out of the 12 prosecution witnesses had been examined, the trial of the
present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon. He, therefore,
prays that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.)
Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in
CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman &
others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023 arising
out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in
CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023'., the petitioner was
entitled to the concession of bail.
4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has filed a
reply dated 04.09.2024 which is taken on record. While referring to the same,
he contends that the petitioner was an accused in one other case bearing FIR
No.118/2020 dated 01.01.2020 under Section 15 of the NDPS Act, Police
Station Central Sector 17, Chandigarh. Therefore, he was not entitled to the
concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner was in custody
since 06.02.2022 and only 04 out of the 12 prosecution witnesses had been
examined so far.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @
Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on
01.08.2022 held as under:-
"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the
show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was
supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116361
and separate notice has been served on the State also.
However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.
The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No.
612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and
37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon,
West Bengal.
During the course of the hearing, we are informed
that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01
year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a
preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined.
The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.
Taking into consideration the period of sentence
undergone by the petitioner and all the attending
circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits
of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released
on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the
aforestated terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of."
7. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal,
SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023, decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-
"1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave Petition,
who were accused of committing an offence under Sections
21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances
Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS Act') in FIR No.18/2022, dated
09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur, District
Murshidabad, West Bengal.
2. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted
the petitioners along with another person riding on two
motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116361
phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in
two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each)
of phensedyl were recovered from the joint possession of the
petitioners. They were arrested on the spot and have been in
custody for more than one year and four months.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused the record.
4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been
filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The
conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time,
regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to
conclude the same within one year from the date of framing
of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal
antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views
on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release
the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as
may be imposed by the Trial Court.
6. Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are
found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or
other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession
of bail granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary
consequences shall follow.
7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the
Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it
shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.
8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above
terms.
9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands
disposed of.
(emphasis supplied)
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116361
8. Admittedly, in 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan (supra) and
Hasanujjaman & others (supra)', the accused therein had been granted the
concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone
approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time
offenders as is borne out from the orders.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody for
more than 02 years and 06 months, though, he is involved in one other case.
As only 04 out of the 12 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far, the
Trial of the present case is not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In view
of the fact that the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of custody,
the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view
of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which
provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be
considered for the grant of bail.
10. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Rakesh is ordered to be released on bail
subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of
learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
11. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on
the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in
writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime/case(s) other than
the case(s) referred to in this order.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116361
12. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare
an FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial Court.
The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of
the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.
13. The petition stands disposed of.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
September 05, 2024
sukhpreet
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
