Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of Punjab on 10 January, 2025
Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002419
CRM-M-14587-2024 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM-M-14587-2024
Date of Decision:-10.01.2025
Deepak Kumar.
......Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab.
......Respondent.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present:- Mr. Sandeep Kumar Passi, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.
***
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)
The Prayer in this third petition under Section 439 Cr.PC is for
the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.275 dated 19.06.2022 under Sections
22(c)/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and later on added Section 29 of the NDPS
Act, 1985 registered at Police Station City Barnala, District Barnala, Punjab.
2. The brief facts of the case are that secret information was
received that Navdeep Goyal @ Tony (since granted the concession of bail
vide order dated 16.01.2024 in CRM-M-49963-2023) and Binder Singh,
who were running chemist shops were in the trade of selling intoxicating
tablets and capsules. They would be bringing the same in their vehicle make
Creta bearing registration No. PB-197-0097. If a nakabandi is setup, they
could be apprehended.
Based on the aforementioned information, the aforementioned
accused came to be apprehended and were found to be in possession of
1,40,100 capsules of Prebasun-300 mg., 75 small boxes containing 15,000
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002419
CRM-M-14587-2024 #2#
loose capsules of Prebasun-300 mg. labeled as RIDLEY, 3200 intoxicant
tablets labeled as Trakem-100 (Tramadol Hydrochloride Tables 100 mg) and
Rs.1,30,000/-.
On 24.06.2022, at the instance of Binder Singh, 12 boxes of
intoxicant tablets of AZOX-0.50 (Alprozolam Tablets IPO 50 mg) each box
containing 20 strips, each strip containing 10 tablets total 2400 intoxicant
tablets having batch No.AT22179 Mfg. 02/2022 Exp. 01/2025, 20 boxes of
intoxicant tablets of E-0.25 (Etizolam Tablets 0.50 mg) each box containing
10 strips each strip containing 10 tablets, thus, total 2000 intoxicant tablets
having batch No.AT22309 Mfg. 04/2022 Exp.03/2025 came to be recovered
from his house.
During the investigation, Binder Singh disclosed that he used to
supply the intoxicating tablets to one Deepak Kumar (petitioner) and on the
basis of the said statement, the offence under Section 29 of the NDPS Act
was added and Deepak Kumar was arrested on 30.06.2022. From his
possession, 4350 capsules of which 2175 capsules contained salt Tramadol
Hydrochloride came to be recovered.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he 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. In one other case bearing FIR No.165 dated 20.07.2010 under
Sections 22, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985, P.S. City-1 Mansa, he had
already been convicted. As he was in custody since 30.06.2022 and only 05
out of the 26 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
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002419
CRM-M-14587-2024 #3#
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. The learned State counsel on the other hand contends that the
petitioner is a habitual offender with one other case bearing FIR No.165
dated 20.07.2010 under Sections 22, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985, P.S.
City-1 Mansa, wherein he had been convicted. 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 was in custody
since 30.06.2022 and only 05 out of the 26 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 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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002419
CRM-M-14587-2024 #4#
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
(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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002419
CRM-M-14587-2024 #5#
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
offenders as is borne out from the orders.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner is stated to be in custody since
30.06.2022 and only 05 of the 26 prosecution witnesses have been examined
so far. In the other case registered against him under the NDPS Act he had
been convicted. 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:002419
CRM-M-14587-2024 #6#
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-Deepak Kumar son of Sh. Ravi Chand
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
cases mentioned in this order.
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 10, 2025
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
