Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Singh Alias Manjeet Singh vs State Of Punjab on 21 January, 2025
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-58775-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-58775-2024
Reserved on: 15.01.2025
Pronounced on: 21.01.2025
Manjit Singh @ Manjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. H.S. Dhindsa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Akshay Kumar, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
75 12.08.2023 Khamano, District 22(c), 61, 85 of NDPS Act
Fatehgarh Sahib
1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this
Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking regular bail.
2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal
antecedents.
3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On
12-08-2023, based on a chance recovery, the Police seized 4 packets of Buprenorphine
Injection IP 2 ml, each packet contains 5/5 injections, total 20 injections, Batch
No.DA544, Mfg date May-23 Exp Date APR-25 and 20 vials of AVIL 10 ML Batch
No.2123078, Mfg APR-23, Expiry Date MAR-2026 from the petitioner's possession.
4. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of
the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973.
5. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and
contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the
petitioner and their family.
6. The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report.
7. It would be appropriate to refer to paras no. 4 & 6 of the bail petition, which reads
Jyoti Sharma as follows:-
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-58775-2024
"4. That no independence witness was joined although the
alleged place of recovery from the petitioner is a busy place and
no reason has been given as to why independent witness was not
joined and no name has been given, who was asked to join but
refused and no respectable of the area was called at the spot
before conducting the search. The whole case of the prosecution
is based on the testimonies of the official witnesses who are
interested witnesses.
6. That the alleged recovery has been shown to be effected
after sunset and before sunrise. But no search warrants were
obtained by the IO before conducting the search. Furthermore, no
special reason for not obtaining the search warrants from the Ld.
Magistrate of the concerned area, were recorded by the IO. It is
clear from the above-mentioned facts that there is blatant
violation of section 42 of the NDPS act."
8. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors
of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin
conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
9. However, the petitioner is entitled to bail because Hon'ble Supreme Court had
granted bail on prolonged custody in the following judicial precedents:
1) In Junaid Alam v. State of Uttarakhand, decided on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.)
7708-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[2]. It is pointed out that the petitioner has been in custody for last
more than 18 months since he was arrested on 25.01.2023. It is
then submitted that only 3 out of the 10 cited prosecution witnesses
have been examined and they have not said anything to connect the
petitioner with the crime.
[3]. The learned counsel for the State would submit that the
concerned Contraband are medicinal drugs but they are sold for
profit. Moreover, it is of commercial quantity.
[4]. We have perused the nature of the Contraband i.e., the
prohibited medicines (SYP Codectus 100 Bottles (100 Ml each),
Cap Pyeevon Spas Plus 720 Cap Parvion Spas 800 Capsules,
Spasonof NF 960 capsules, Capsules Spasmoproxyvon Plus 144,
Proxywell Spas 2568 Capsules, Alprasafe Table 600 Tablets,
Pyeevon Spas Plus 32 Capsules).
[5]. Having considered the above and the fact that the trial is
unlikely to conclude on a near date, we are of the view that the
petitioner - Junaid Alam deserves to be granted bail. It is ordered
accordingly. Appropriate bail conditions be imposed by the trial
court.
10. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious
fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation,
the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-58775-2024
(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act1.
11. In Tajmul SK v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047-
2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,
[5]. We are inclined to set aside the impugned order only on the
premise that right to speedy trial is a fundamental right. Despite the
fact that the appellant has been under incarceration for more than
one and a half years, the trial is yet to start, though, it is submitted
by learned counsel appearing for the State that charges have been
framed. Suffice it is to state that trial would take considerable
length of time. There is no antecedent involving the appellant.
[6]. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant
is granted bail, subject to the conditions that may be imposed by
the Trial Court.
12. Given the above, the petitioner's pretrial custody is more than some of the judicial
precedents mentioned above; the petitioner is entitled to bail under Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
13. Per the custody certificate dated 14.01.2025, the petitioner's custody in this FIR is
01 year, 04 month and 29 days. Given the drugs were medicines that attracted violation of
S. 22 of NDPS Act, viz-a-viz the petitioner having no criminal antecedents, pre-trial
custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations and the other
factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability for further pre-trial
incarceration at this stage.
14. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar
to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail.
This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official
webpage.
15. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the
petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds
to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest
Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must
be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused.
16. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the
following personal identification details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number (If available) and when the
attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or
Supreme Court of India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on
13 July 2023
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-58775-2024
considers the accused a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available)
4. E-Mail id (If available)
17. This order is subject to the petitioner's complying with the following terms.
18. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the
concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence,
influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any
witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and
circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the
Court.
19. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount
to protect the drug detection squad, their family members, as well as the members of
society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the
filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be
appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restriction is being imposed
based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty,
i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate
sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this
case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along
with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days from release from
prison and inform the Investigator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian
Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and take it back in case of
acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restricting
firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would
also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense.
20. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform
and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug
abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ
Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge
bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court holds that "The bail conditions imposed by the Court
must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be
proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions
must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so,
conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed."
21. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024,
SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, "It goes without saying
that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail
granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
CRM-M-58775-2024
necessary consequences."
22. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner
indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State shall file an application for cancellation of
this bail before the Sessions Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail.
23. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
24. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any
Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the
official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants
to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may
download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds.
25. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
stand disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
21.01.2025
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh
