Kuldeep Singh Alias Maan Gurdial Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 17567 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kuldeep Singh Alias Maan Gurdial Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 September, 2024

Author: Pankaj Jain

Bench: Pankaj Jain

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125652




[217]       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                  CRM-M--12709-2024
                                  Date of Decision : 23.09.2024

Kuldeep Singh alias Maan Gurdial Singh                    ...Petitioner

                                 versus

State of Punjab                                           ....Respondent


Coram :     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANK
                                PANKAJ JAIN


Present:    Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Solomon Partap Singh, AAG, Punjab.
            ***

PANKAJ JAIN,
       JAIN J. (ORAL)

[1] Prayer is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR

No.77 dated 29.11.2022 registered under Sections 21-C, 23, 27-A, 29 of the

NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 10, 11 & 12 of the Air Craft Act, 1934 at

Police Station Khem Karan, District Tarn Taran.

[2] Custody certificate dated 20.09.2024 has been produced in

Court today. The same is taken on record.

record.

[3] As per the case of prosecution, a secret information was

received with respect to a drone along with contraband lying in the land of

Major Singh son of Chanan Singh.

[4] Drone was recovered along with the packet. From the said

packet, 6 kg. 680 680 grams of Heroin was recovered. It is further claimed that

on the basis of the secret information, present petitioner was apprehended,

which led to further recovery of 300 grams of Heroin.

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125652

CRM-M-12709

[5] Counsel for the petitioner etitioner submits that the petitioner oner has

undergone actual custody of more than 011 year 08 months and 22 days.. By

now, only 02 out of 19 cited witnesses could be examined despite the fact

that majority of them are the official witnesses. Thus, the trial is not likely

to conclude onclude in the near future.

[6] Learned State Counsel does not dispute that so far as evid evidence ence

with respect to linking the contraband recovered from the petitioner with the

heroin recovered from the drone is concerned, the same is not forthcoming.

[7] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully

gone through the records of the case.

[8] Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon order passed by

thee Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha passed

in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4169 of 2023 decided on

13.07.2023 wherein it has been held as under ::-

"4. As regard to the twin conditions ions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re:

formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe elieve that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guarantee guaranteed d under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125652

CRM-M-12709

[9] Earlier to Rabi Prakash's case (supra) also Apex Court has

consistently held that the prolonged incarceration has to be considered de consistently

hors bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court

in order dated 22.08.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

2022 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State No.5530-2022

of Gujarat, had held as under:-

"We We are inclined to release the petitioner on bail only on the ground that he has spent about two years in custody and conclusion of trial will take some time.

Consequently, without expressing any views on tthe he merits of the case and taking into consideration the custody period of the petitioner, this special leave petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Special al Judge/ concerned Trial Court.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of inthe above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

[10] Supreme Court in order dated 07.02.20 07.02.2020 passed in Criminal

Appeal No.245/2020 titled as "Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas Vs. The State of

West Bengal" was pleased to grant concession of bail to the petitioner

(therein) in a case where the custody was of 1 year and 7 months

approximately. The relevant relevant portion of the said order dated 07.02.2020 is as

under: -

"Leave granted.

This appeal arises out of the final Order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No.6787 of 2019.

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125652

CRM-M-12709

The instant matter arises out of application preferred bbyy the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in connection with Criminal Case No.146 of 2018 registered with Taherpur Police Station for offence punishable under Section 21 21-C C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

According to the prosecution, the appellant was found to be in possession of narcotic substance i.e. 46 bottles of phensydryl cough syrup containing codeine mixture above commercial quantity.

The appellant was arrested on 21.07.2018 and continues to be in custody. It appears that out of 10 witnesses cited to be examined in support of the case of prosecution four witnesses have already been examined in the trial.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival submissions and considering the ffacts acts and circumstances on record, in our view, case for bail is made out. We therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:

(a) Subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the Judge, Special Cou Court, rt, NDPS Act, Nadia at Krishnagar, the appellant shall be released on bail.

(b) The Special Court may impose such other conditions as it deems appropriate to ensure the presence and participation of the appellant in the pending trial. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands allowed."

[11] In order dated 05.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022

titled as "Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India," the

Supreme Court was pleased to observe as un under: -

"Leave granted.

This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in MCRC No.117/2022. The appellant is in custody since 18.06.2020 in connection with crime registered ered as N.C.B. Crime No.02/2020 in respect

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125652

CRM-M-12709

of offences punishable under Sections 8, 20, 27 27-AA, AA, 28 read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The application seeking relief of bail having been rejected, the instant appeal has been filed.

We have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, learned Senior Advocate in support of the appeal and Mr. Sanjay Jain,learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent.

Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the length of custody undergone dergone by the appellant, in our view the case for bail is made out.

We therefore, direct that:

(a) The appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within five days from today.

(b) The Trial Court shall release the appellant on bail subject to such suc conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose.

(c) The appellant shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(d) Any infraction shall entail in withdrawal of the benefit granted by this Order.

The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms."

[12] In order dated 01.08.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)

No.5769/2022 titled as "Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West

Bengal" Supreme Court has observed 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 and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

Thee 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 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125652

CRM-M-12709

During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner hass 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 senten sentence ce 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 urnishing 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."

[13] The petitioner is behind bars since 29.12.2022.. By now, only onl

02 out of 19 1 cited witnesses could be examined despite the fact that majority

of them are the official witnesses. Thus, the trial is not likely to conclude onclude in

the near future.

[14] Keeping in view the custody stody of petitioner i.e. more than 01 year

08 months and 22 days in the present case and that the trial ha hass proceeded at

snail's pace, the present petition deserves to be allowed.. Petitioner is

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

bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Co Court/Magistrate, urt/Magistrate, concerned.

However, the same shall be subject to the following conditions:

conditions:-

(i) The petitioner shall not mis mis-use use the liberty granted.

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evi-

ev dence oral or documentary during the trial.

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:125652

CRM-M-12709

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any with the trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone nu number mber to the police authorities and shall not change his cell-phone phone number without permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

[15] In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those

which hich may be imposed by the Trial Court, the prosecution shall be at liberty

to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

[16]          Ordered accordingly.


                                                       (PANKAJ JAIN)
                                                          JUDGE
23.09.2024
'R. Sharma'

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




                                   7 of 7