Manvinder Singh Alias Mani vs State Of Punjab
2025 Latest Caselaw 2854 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Manvinder Singh Alias Mani vs State Of Punjab on 3 March, 2025

                                 Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029736



CRM-M-53349-2024                                                    1




      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH
222
                                           CRM-M-53349-2024 (O&M)
                                            Date of decision: 03.03.2025
Manvinder Singh @ Mani
                                                               ....Petitioner
                                  Versus
State of Punjab
                                                             ....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present:     Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.

HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this 3rd petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is

for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.172 dated

20.08.2023 registered under Sections 18, 25, 29, of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short 'the NDPS Act')

(Section 25/54/59 of Arms Act, 1959 added later on) at Police Station

Chhehreta, District Police Commissionerate Amritsar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 2 nd

petition seeking concession of regular bail was dismissed as withdrawn

on 05.08.2024 and the present petition has been filed on the ground of

delay in conclusion of the trial and the case of the petitioner is squarely

covered by the judgment of Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The

State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023.

3. As per the prosecution case, the FIR (supra) was registered

on the basis of the statement of SI Balwinder Singh, alleging therein

1 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029736

that the petitioner and Manjinder Singh were intercepted by the police

while they were on patrolling duty near Chhehreta Chowk, Amritsar.

Thereafter, a white colour Creta car was seen coming from Amritsar

side and on seeing the police party, the two persons sitting in the car

tried to run away, however, they were apprehended on the basis of

suspicion and their personal search was conducted and nothing

objectionable was recovered from them, however, from the dashboard

of the said, 02 Kgs. 600 gms. of Opium was recovered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that

nothing has been recovered from the conscious and exclusive

possession of the petitioner. Admittedly, Opium was recovered from the

dashboard of the car and the petitioner neither has any connection with

the car nor he is the owner of the same, from which the alleged

contraband has been recovered. Further the recovery in the present case

is 02 Kgs. 600 gms, of Opium, which is marginally higher than the

commercial quantity as the commercial quantity is 02 Kgs and 500 gms.

and in the present case, the recovery of Opium was made along with the

polythene bag and the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than

01 year and 06 months and he is not involved in any other case

registered under the NDPS Act.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody

certificate today in the Court which is taken on record and he opposes

the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that

huge quantity of contraband was recovered from the conscious

2 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029736

possession of the petitioner, which falls within the ambit of commercial

quantity. He further submits that delay in conclusion of the trial

occurred on account of non-appearance of co-accused Manjinder Singh

and Lakhwinder Singh, who have been initially granted the concession

of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and as such, the petitioner is not

entitled for any relief, however, he could not controvert the fact that the

petitioner is not involved in any other case registered under the NDPS

Act.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind

the bars from the last 01 year, 06 months and 02 days. Investigation is

complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented

before the concerned Court. Charges were framed and trial of the case

has not made much progress.

7. A two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal's case (supra) released the accused

on bail after completion of 18 months 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 Bengal SLP(Crl.)

No. 14970-2023, Santarul Islam @ Santa Vs. The State of West

Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 13169/2023, Indrajit Mondal @ Piglu Vs. The

3 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029736

State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8512/2023, Narjul Islam @

Najbul Hoque Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No.

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. 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 of West

Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8823/2019.

8. Further, the 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. Keeping the petitioners in further

detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near

future, would be violative of their rights under Article 21 of the

Constitution of India. A two Judge bench of 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

4 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029736

involving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section

37 of the NDPS Act. 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 this 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 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 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 which 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)

9. A two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in

"Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI", (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to

prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

"6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women.

5 of 6

Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:029736

Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other."

10. In view the discussion above, the present petition is

allowed. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case,

the petitioner namely Manvinder Singh @ Mani is ordered to be

released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on his furnishing

bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial

Court/Duty Magistrate.

11. 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)
                                                  JUDGE

03.03.2025
yakub

             Whether speaking/reasoned:               Yes/No

             Whether reportable:                      Yes/No




                                  6 of 6