Des Raj vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 884 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Des Raj vs State Of Punjab on 15 January, 2025

Author: Jasjit Singh Bedi

Bench: Jasjit Singh Bedi

                                         Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004891



CRM-M-2298-2024              #1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH.


                                                            CRM-M-2298-2024

                                                  Date of Decision:-15.01.2025

Des Raj.
                                                                   ......Petitioner.
                                    Versus
State of Punjab.
                                                                 ......Respondent.

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

Present:-   Mr. Umesh Sharma, Advocate for the Petitioner.

            Mr. Harkanwar Jeet Singh, AAG Punjab.

                                  ***

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.(ORAL)

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

grant of regular bail in case FIR No.313 dated 03.12.2022 under Sections 21,

29, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Model Town,

District Hoshiarpur.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Sonu @ Moosa (since

granted interim bail vide order dated 17.12.2024 in CRR-993-2024) was

arrested on recovery of 270 grams of Heroin from an envelope thrown by

him in the street and the petitioner Des Raj was arrested on recovery of 80

grams of Heroin thrown by him in the street.

Based on the disclosure statement of arrested accused Mahatiya

@ Mahatian (since granted anticipatory bail vide order dated 25.08.2023 in

CRM-M-12122-2023) and Sonu @ Gajini were nominated as accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

1 of 5

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004891

CRM-M-2298-2024 #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 a first-time offender, in custody since

03.12.2022 and none of the 11 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 has filed short

reply dated 25.11.2024 by way of affidavit of Mr. Dev Dutt Sharma, PPS,

DSP, Sub Division City, District Hoshiarpur in the court today, which is

taken on record. While referring to the said reply he 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 03.12.2022 and

none of the 11 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:-

                                      2 of 5

                                          Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:004891



CRM-M-2298-2024             #3

"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 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:004891

CRM-M-2298-2024 #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:004891

CRM-M-2298-2024 #5

offenders as is borne out from the orders.

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

03.12.2022 and none of the 11 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-Des Raj son of Sh. Karam Chand @

Kala 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 15, 2025
Vinay
        Whether speaking/reasoned                      Yes/No
        Whether reportable                             Yes/No




                                       5 of 5