Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh Alias Ata Pattu vs State Of Punjab on 14 January, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003781
211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-25639-2024
Date of decision: 14.01.2025
AVTAR SINGH ALIAS ATA PATTU
...PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB
...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Karandeep S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR,
BRAR J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.
No.101 dated 03.07.2023 under
Sections 22/29/25 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for short "NDPS Act') and Section 201 of IPC registered at Police Station
Kamboj,, District (Amritsar Rural) (Annexure P
P-1).
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.07.2023, when police party
was going towards village Pandori Waraich from Adda Bauli
Bauli, two persons
were standing on the side of road, out of which
which, one was standing near an
Activa colour
our black bearing registration No.PB
No.PB-02-ED-2879
2879 and second one
was standing near a Three wheeler bearing registration No.PB-65-AC-6018
(T), out of them one hair cut young person was holding a black coloured heavy
polythene, in his right hand and another person wearing turban was also
holding a black
ack polythene in his right hand. Upon
pon seeing police party
party, they got
scared and tried to ran away alongwith their vehicles. Upon having doubt, the
complainant ASI Jasbir Singh along with accompanied officials nabbed the
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003781
CRM-M-25639
young hair cut person, who was holding black coloured heavy polythene in his
right hand and second
sec person was nabbed by ASI Amar Singh 1189 with the
help of accompanied officials. After separating the arrested persons, the
complainant-ASI
ASI Jasbir Singh asked the name of the yyoung
oung hair cut person,
who was holding a polythene bag in his right hand nabbed by him.. He
disclosed his name as Harvinder Singh alias Kaka son of Gurcharan Singh
resident of Main Adda Pandori, District Amritsar and enquired about the
substance lying in the black polythene bag, he said that boxes of tramadol
tablets are lying in
in it. Before opening the black polythene, efforts were made to
join some public witnesses
witness in the police party, but everyone showed their
inability and did not join the police party. Upon this the complainant-ASI
ASI
Jasbir Singh opened black polythene bag caught
caught in the right hand of Harvinder
Singh alias Kaka in front of accompanied officials and recovered 2 boxes of
tramadol tablets and on counting 10 strips found in one box and 4 strips in
another box and 10/10 tramadol tablets were in each strip and its colo
colour
ur was
white and the batch number & expiry date written on the boxes were removed
from the box and total 700 tablets of tramadol have been recovered.. Thereafter,
the complainant asked the name of second arrested person, who disclosed his
name as Avtar Singh
Sin alias Atta Patu (petitioner herein) son of Balwant Singh,
from whom 02 boxes of tramadol tablets i.e. 10 strips (each strip containing
10/10 tablets) of tramadol tablets, colour white were recovered. Hence, the FIR
(supra)) was registered.
3. Learned counsel
counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and the mandatory
provisions of NDPS Act have not been complied with. Further, no independent
witness was joined at the time of conducting sear
search. Learned counsel further
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003781
CRM-M-25639
submits that embargo under Section 37 of NDPS Act is dislodged in view of
the protection provided by Article 21 of Constitution of India on account of
delay in conclusion of the trial. The petitioner has already suffered
incarceration
ration of more than 01 year and 06 months and the prosecution has not
been able to conclude its evidence.
4. Learned
earned State counsel produces reply dated 07.01.2025 by way of
an affidavit of Lakhwinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, sub
Division Attari, Amritsar (Rural) on behalf of respondent
respondent-State
State as well as the
custody certificate, which are taken on record and per contra, opposes the
prayer made by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner was
apprehended at the spot and 1000 tablets of Tramadol, which fall within the
ambit of commercial quantity have been recovered from his conscious
possession and 700 tablets were recovered from the co
co-accused. However, he
could not controvert the fact that he is not involved in any other case and has
undergone a total custody of 01 year, 06 months and 09 days.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars since
04.07.2023.. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before
the concerned Court and subsequently, charges were framed. Currently, the
trial is at the stage of prosecution witness and out of 15 PWs, only 02 have
been examined till date.. The petitioner has already undergone 01 year, 06
months and 09 days of custody and the delay in conclusion of trial cannot be
attributed him.
6. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nandlal
Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.)
No(s).12788/2023 released the accused on bail after completion of 18 months
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003781
CRM-M-25639
of custody on account of protracted trial in NDPS case involving commercial
quantity of contraband. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the
judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Md. Aliul Islam
@ Aliul Islam @ Alius Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.
000736/2024, Debrata Mondal Vs. State of West Benga
Bengall SLP(Crl.) No.
14970-2023,
2023, Santarul Islam @ Santa Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.)
No. 13169/2023, Indrajit Mondal @ Piglu Vs. The State of West Bengal
SLP(Crl.) No. 8512/2023, Narjul Islam @ Najbul Hoque Vs. The State of
West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14172/2023,
14172/2023, Subhashri Das @ Rana @
Subhoshree Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15284/2023, Mithun
Sk. & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.016598/2023, SK.
Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin SK. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.)
No.003402/2024, Indadul Shah Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No.
No.003402/2024,
12670/2023 , Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh Vs. Union of India, Ripon
Seikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 16663/2023, Moidul
Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl).No. 15668/ 2023, Saniya Bibi
@ Soniya Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 2354/2024,
Saddam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15496/2023, Bijon
SK @ Golam Murselim Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.
6046/2024 and Subhas Vs. The State
te of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No.
8823/2019.
7. Further, the culpability,
culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of
trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the
petitioner-accused.
accused. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the
prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of
his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge bench of
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003781
CRM-M-25639
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of
Delhi)) 2023 AIR SC 1648 has held that the concept of fairness enshrined under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India would trump the bar on granting bail in
cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section 37
of the NDPS Act. Speaking
Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, has opined as
follows:
"20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court
would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see
whether the accused's guilt may be proved. The judgments of th this
is court
have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are
expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima
facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous
examination of the materials collected
collected during investigation (as held in
Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of undue
delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act,
given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences
under the
the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having
regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this
case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws whic whichh
impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in
public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice
wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and
their living conditions, more often than not, appalling." (emphasis
added)
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that the right
to speedy trial as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, is a
fundamental concept in criminal jurisprudence and a sine qua non for proper
administration of justice. It must be noted that 'trial' herein encompasses
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e. everything
commencing with the accusation to the final verdict of the last Court. Further
still, it is trite law
aw that no person can be deprived of his liberty except through a
procedure that is reasonable, fair and just as such deprivation would amount to
a direct violation of the fundamental right as enshrined in Article 21 of the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:003781
CRM-M-25639
Constitution of India. Be that as
as it may, curtailment of personal liberty to some
extent cannot be avoided. However, if the period of deprivation pending trial
becomes excessively long, the fairness as guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India would come into play and woul
would
d also prevail over the
embargo created by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. A reference in this regard can
be made to the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Akhtari
Bi Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh alias Shingara Singh
Vs. State of Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State
of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others Vs. State of U.P.,
(1978) 1 SCC 579, Takht Singh and others Vs. State of M.P., (2001) 10 SCC
463; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356
No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh Vs. State
of U.P. (2JJ.) and Fazal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 752.
9. In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed.
Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner
petitioner--
Avtar Singh @ Ata Pattu is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial
on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa
Magistrate/Trial Court.
Court
10. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression
of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is
directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the
trial.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
January 14, 2025
202 JUDGE
manisha
(i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
(ii) Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
