Parampreet Singh @ Raja vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 1101 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Parampreet Singh @ Raja vs State Of Punjab on 20 January, 2025

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007641



CRM-M-45549-2024      #1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH.


                                                          CRM-M-45549-2024

                                                  Date of Decision:-20.01.2025

Parampreet Singh @ Raja.
                                                                   ......Petitioner.
                                       Versus
State of Punjab.
                                                                 ......Respondent.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI

Present:-    Ms. Amandeep Soni, Advocate for the Petitioner.

             Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.

                                 ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The Prayer in this third petition under section 483 of Bhartiya

Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) is for the grant of regular bail in

case FIR No.306 dated 26.11.2022 under Sections 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985

(Section 61/85 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station

Jandiala, District Amritsar (Rural).

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on

the patrolling, two young persons were seen coming on a motor cycle. On

seeing the police party, they tried to turn their motor cycle but it slipped and

stopped. The pillion rider got down and tried to run away. He tried to throw

away a heavy black colour polythene bag which he was holding in his hand

but was apprehended. On asking he disclosed his name as Parampreet Singh

@ Raja (petitioner). Search of the bag revealed that 790 loose intoxicant

tablets. The driver of the motor cycle disclosed his name as Gurlal Singh @

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007641

CRM-M-45549-2024 #2

Laali (granted bail vide order dated 24.01.2024 in CRM-M-42042-2023).

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 have not been complied

with in their proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the

time of search and seizure. As he was a first-time offender, in custody since

26.11.2022 and only 01 out of 10 prosecution witnesses had been examined

so far, the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime

soon and therefore, he was entitled to the concession of bail 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.

4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that

commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner.

Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act,

the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail. He, however, concedes

that the petitioner is a first time offender, in custody since 26.11.2022 and 01

out of 10 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

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007641

CRM-M-45549-2024 #3

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.

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 phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007641

CRM-M-45549-2024 #4

(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)

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

4 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007641

CRM-M-45549-2024 #5

offenders as is borne out from the orders.

9. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since

26.111.2022 and only 01 out of 10 prosecution witnesses have been

examined so far. He is also a first-time offender with no other case

registered against him. In this situation, 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-Parampreet Singh @ Raja son of Sh.

Mehal Singh 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 other than the

present case.

12. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall

prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- 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
January 20, 2025
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                      Yes/No
        Whether reportable                             Yes/No




                                       5 of 5