Hari Pal vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 1472 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Hari Pal vs State Of Punjab on 28 January, 2025

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012128



CRM-M-3616-2025              #1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH.


                                                            CRM-M-3616-2025

                                                  Date of Decision:-28.01.2025

Hari Pal.
                                                                   ......Petitioner.
                                    Versus
State of Punjab.
                                                                 ......Respondent.

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

Present:-   Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the Petitioner.

            Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.

                                  ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

The Prayer in this second petition under section 439 Cr.PC is

for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.98 dated 07.06.2023 under

Sections 21(C)/25/27A of NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 25 of the Arms Act,

1959 registered at Police Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Lovepreet Singh @ Raja,

Jasbir @ Jasvir Singh @ Padda (since granted bail vide order dated

12.12.2024 in CRM-M-61282-2024), Vikas @ Rubal and Haripal @ Hari

(petitioner) were apprehended. During the course of their search a .315 bore

loaded country made pistol came to be recovered from the left pocket of

Lovepreet Singh @ Raja and from one black coloured bag a polythene

packet was recovered containing 1Kg 500 grams of Heroin and Rs.53,000/-

cash.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012128

CRM-M-3616-2025 #2

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 first-time offender, in custody for 01

year 07 months and 11 days and only 01 of the 13 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 for 01 year 07 months

and 11 days and only 01 of the 13 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

2 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012128

CRM-M-3616-2025 #3

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

3 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:012128

CRM-M-3616-2025 #4

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)

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:012128

CRM-M-3616-2025 #5

offenders as is borne out from the orders.

9. In the instant case, the petitioners are stated to be in custody for

01 year 07 months and 11 days and only 01 of the 13 prosecution witnesses

have been examined so far. He is 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, moreso

when his co-accused has been granted the concession of bail.

10. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present

petition is allowed and the petitioner-Hari Pal son of Sh. Sodhi Ram 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 28, 2025
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                      Yes/No
        Whether reportable                             Yes/No




                                       5 of 5