Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nand Kumar Singh And Another vs State Of Punjab on 25 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040392
216 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14328-2025
Date of decision: 25.03.2025
Nand Kumar Singh and another ....Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Rajat Dogra, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.32
dated 26.02.2023 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 22(c)/29 of the NDPS Act,
registered at Police Station Shambu, District Patiala.
2. This is the 1st petition on behalf of petitioner No.2 and 3rd petition
on behalf of petitioner No.1. Earlier, first petition was dismissed vide order
dated 31.01.2024 and second petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order
dated 10.05.2024.
3. The present petition has been filed on account of change in
circumstances as one of the co-accused, namely, Ram Kirpal Yadav, has been
granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2025
passed in CRM-M-49362-2024 titled as 'Ram Kirpal Yadav @ Ram Kirpal
Yadav Vs. State of Punjab' (Annexure P-5).
4. As per the prosecution case, a secret information was received by
the police that one private bus of Vishali Express bearing registration No.UP-
43-AT-4038 is coming from Ambala side and is to go to Ludhiana and its driver
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040392
is Dudh Nath along with Nand Kumar Singh, Ram Kirpal and Dinesh Morya
were also in the said bus. They used to smuggle intoxicant tablets in heavy
quantity and in the smuggling, the owner and Manager of the transport company
were also involved and they have a strong nexus for smuggling the drugs.
Accordingly, the FIR (supra) has been registered and a Naka was laid. The said
bus was taken into police possession from which recovery of total 49,500
TRAMADOL PROLONGED RELEASE TABLETS IP, 100 mg,
TRAMATRUST SR100, which were lying in separate bundles/plastic bags of
boxes kept concealed in different places of the bus, i.e. 25 boxes under the front
seat of the bus each box having 50 strips containing 10 tablets each (12,500
tablets), 25 boxes from the shelf above the driver seat of the bus each box having
50 strips containing 10 tablets each (12,500 tablets), 49 boxes from the tool box
of the bus each box having 50 strips containing 10 tablets each (24,500 tablets),
was effected. Thereafter, the accused Dudh Nath (petitioner No.2), Nand Kumar
Singh (petitioner No.1), Ram Kirpal and Dinesh Morya have been arrested from
the spot.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that the
petitioners are behind the bars since 04.03.2023 and till date, charges have not
been framed and the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment Mohd.
Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR SC 1648. He further
submits that it is a matter of trial, whether the presence of the petitioners on the
bus prove their involvement in the alleged drug smuggling operation or not.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners are not
involved in any other case and the trial is likely to take long time in conclusion
as charges are yet to be framed. He further submits that similarly situated co-
accused, namely, Ram Kirpal Yadav, has been granted the concession of regular
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040392
bail by this Court vide order dated 30.01.2025 passed in CRM-M-49362-2024
titled as 'Ram Kirpal Yadav @ Ram Kirpal Yadav Vs. State of Punjab'
(Annexure P-5).
6. 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 petitioners on the ground that huge quantity of
contraband was recovered, which falls within the ambit of commercial quantity
and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief, however, he could not
controvert the fact that the petitioners are not involved in any other case and
charges are yet to be framed.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case, it transpires that the petitioners are behind the bars from the
last 02 years and 20 days. Investigation is complete. The final report under
Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. Charges are yet
to be framed and trial of the case has not made much progress.
8. A two Judge bench of the 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
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 State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.)
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040392
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.
9. 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
petitioners-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 involving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section 37
of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, has opined as
follows:
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040392
"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)
10. A two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Satender
Kumar Antil v. 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. 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:040392
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."
11. In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed.
Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioners,
namely, Nand Kumar Singh and Dudhnath, are ordered to be released on
regular bail during pendency of the trial, on their furnishing bail bonds/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
12. 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
25.03.2025
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
