Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satnam Singh Alias Shama vs State Of Punjab on 21 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039259
CRM-M-79-2025 (O&M) 1
214
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-79-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 21.03.2025
SATNAM SINGH @ SHAMA ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ...RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG Punjab
***
Harpreet Singh Brar, J. (Oral)
1. This is the first petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking
regular bail for the petitioner, in case bearing FIR No. 19 dated 13.06.2023
registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985 (for short "NDPS Act') at Police Station Kabirpur (Ahalikalan), District
Kapurthala.
2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that on 13.06.2023, when the
police party on patrolling duty reached near check dam village Alluwal, they
saw one young person coming towards the dam. On seeing the police party, he
turned back and started walking briskly. Thereafter, he took out some heavy
thing from the left side pocket of his capri and threw it on the side of the road,
into the bushes. On suspicion, the aforesaid person was apprehended and he
disclosed his name as Satnam Singh @ Shama son of Rattan Singh resident of
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039259
Sahwala. The container thrown by the petitioner was found to be containing 516
intoxicant tablets which were light blue in colour.
3. Learned counsel inter alia contends that the alleged recovery is
only 0.6g higher than the non-commercial quantity. Moreover, there is total
non-compliance of Sections 50, 52-A and 57 of NDPS Act. Furthermore, the
police party embarked upon patrolling in a private vehicle, which is in violation
to the instructions issued by Director General of Police, Punjab dated
27.04.2015. The petitioner has undergone total custody of more than 01 year and
04 months and till date, not even a single prosecution witness has been
examined.
4. Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the
petitioner, which is taken on record. He opposes the prayer made by the
petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a habitual offender and is also
involved in one more case under the NDPS Act.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for
a period of 01 year 04 months and 06 days. The final report under Section 173
Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and subsequently, a charge
under Section 22(c) NDPS Act was framed against him. Currently, the trial is at
the stage of prosecution witness, but not even a single prosecution witness has
been examined so far. However, this delay in conclusion of the trial cannot be
attributed to the petitioner.
6. Further still, the FSL report dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P-2)
indicates that the contraband recovered contains Alprazolam. However, the
recovered quantity exceeds the commercial quantity for the said salt only by
0.6g. In cases where the recovery only marginally breaches the threshold for
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039259
commercial quantity of the alleged contraband, this Court has found it proper to
grant regular bail. Reference in this regard can be made to the judgments
rendered by this Court in Davinder Singh alias Baba vs. State of Punjab in
CRM-M-64821-2023 decided on 25.01.2024, Gurmeet Singh vs. State of
Punjab in CRM-M-1007-2024 decided on 15.01.2024, Ranjti Singh @ Ranjit
Kumar vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-57185-2022 decided on 10.01.2023,
Jagtar Singh vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-21460-2022 decided on
08.02.2023, Harjeet Singh alias Sonu vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-8242-
2023 decided on 15.01.2024, Jang Kanwar vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-
53415-2021 decided on 19.01.2022.
7. Moreover, the culpability of the petitioner, if any, would be
determined at the time of trial. Therefore, no useful purpose will be served by
his further detention. In fact, keeping the petitioner under 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.
8. Finally, in view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Prabhakar Tiwari vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020(1) RCR (Criminal)
831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2)
SCC 382, the involvement of an accused in other criminal cases cannot be the
sole ground to deny him the concession of bail.
9. In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed and
the petitioner-Satnam Singh @ Shama 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.
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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:039259
directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the
trial.
11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
21.03.2025
Ajay Goswami Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
