Javraj Singh @ Jugraj Singh v. State of Punjab

IN

JAVRAJ SINGH

STATE OF PUN

CORAM:HON'

Present: Mr. Rish

Mr. Rah

**** ANOOP CHITK

FIR No. D

¶1The petit Court under Sect

¶2Per parag criminal antecede

¶3The facts based on a chan Hydrochloride fr accused. The Inv NDPS Act, 1985

¶4Counsel f the present FIR. thereafter petition was dismissed o N THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB

AT CHANDIGARH C R

H @ JUGRAJ SINGH

VERSUS NJAB

BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHIT hu Mahajan, Advocate for the petition hul Jindal, AAG, Punjab.

KARA, J. Dated Police Station

19.11.2023 Verka, District Amritsar tioner incarcerated in the FIR captio tion 439 of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bai graph 12 of the bail application, th ents: and allegations are taken from the rep nce recovery, the Police seized 138 from the petitioner's possession and vestigator claims to have complied wit , and CrPC, 1973. for the petitioner submits that the pet He is in custody since 19.11.2023 ner had applied for grant of regular ba on 22.02.2024. He further prayed B AND HARYANA

CRM-M-27690-2024 Reserved on: 08.04.2025 Pronounced on: 28.04.2025 ...PETITIONER …RESPONDENT TKARA ner. Sections 21(C)/29 of NDPS Act oned above had come up before this il. he accused declares that he has no ply filed by the State. On 19.11.2023, 80 intoxicating tablets of Tramadol d 600 toxicant tablets from the co-th all the statutory requirements of the titioner has been falsely implicated in and challan was also presented and ail before the trial Court and the same for bail by imposing any stringent

s o , l - e n d e t

conditions, on in the offence invo under Section 19 himself in the cancellation of b irreversible injus

¶5The State

¶6It would b under:- REASONING:

¶7The quan S. 37 of the ND conditions put in

¶8However, granted bail on p 1) In Junaid 2024, Ho [2 on th structions he further submits that the p lving the commercial or intermediate 9/24/27A of NDPS Act. He further su said offences, he has no objection bail. He further contends that further p tice to the petitioner and his family. e's counsel opposes bail and refers to t be appropriate to refer to the followin "xxx

xxx

xx S. The sample parcels of the abov the present petitioner Javraj Singh @ co-accused Daljit Singh and Jasim Testing Forensic Science Laboratory The report thereof was received. As was found present in ingredients of of tablets was found 199 mg tab intoxicant tablets recovered from th Jugraj Singh @ Yuvraj Singh becom 600 intoxicant tablets recovered fro

119.4 grams, which is of commercial ntity allegedly involved in this case is DPS Act apply in the present case. T n place by the Legislature under Sectio , the petitioner is entitled to bail b rolonged custody in the following jud d Alam v. State of Uttarakhand, decide on'ble Supreme Court holds, ]. It is pointed out that the petitioner h 8 months since he was arrested on 2 nly 3 out of the 10 cited prosecution ey have not said anything to connect t petitioner shall not indulge himself in e quantity or the offence which falls ubmits that if the petitioner involves n if the State files application for pre-trial incarceration would cause an the reply. ng portions of the reply, which read as xx

xxx ve stated contrabands recovered from @ Jugran Singh @ Yuvraj Singh and mran Singh were sent to Regional y, Amritsar for scientific examination. per which 'Tramadol Hydrochloride f the contrabands and average weight blet. As such total weight of 1380 he present petitioner Javraj Singh @ mes 274.62 grams and total weight of om co-accused Daljit Singh becomes l quantity." commercial. Given this, the rigors of The petitioner must satisfy the twin on 37 of the NDPS Act. ecause Hon'ble Supreme Court had dicial precedents: ed on 12 Aug 2024, SLP(Crl.) 7708-has been in custody for last more than

25.01.2023. It is then submitted that n witnesses have been examined and the petitioner with the crime.

n s s r n s m d l

' t @ f s f n d n t d

[3 Co of [4 m Pl Ca Al [5 co de co

¶9The prol fundamental righ the conditional 37(1)(b)(ii) of the

¶10In Tajm 2024, Hon'ble Su [5 rig ha ye th co [6 ba

¶11Given the precedents ment Constitution of In

¶12Per the cu 01 year, 04 mont S. 22 of NDPS A nature of allega justifiability furth and conditions m

1Supreme Court of I July 2023

]. The learned counsel for the Stat ontraband are medicinal drugs but the f commercial quantity. ]. We have perused the nature of edicines (SYP Codectus 100 Bottles lus 720 Cap Parvion Spas 800 Cap apsules Spasmoproxyvon Plus 144 lprasafe Table 600 Tablets, Pyeevon S ]. Having considered the above and onclude on a near date, we are of the v eserves to be granted bail. It is or onditions be imposed by the trial court longed incarceration, generally mi ht guaranteed under Article 21 of the liberty must override the statutor e NDPS Act1. mul SK v. The State of West Bengal, upreme Court holds, ]. We are inclined to set aside the imp ght to speedy trial is a fundamental rig as been under incarceration for more et to start, though, it is submitted by le at charges have been framed. Suffic onsiderable length of time. There is no ]. Accordingly, the impugned order is ail, subject to the conditions that may b e above, the petitioner's pretrial custo tioned above; the petitioner is entit ndia. ustody certificate dated 07.04.2025 th ths and 15 days. Given the drugs were Act, viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, couple ations and the other factors peculia her pre-trial incarceration at this stag mentioned in this order.

India, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, te would submit that the concerned ey are sold for profit. Moreover, it is the Contraband i.e., the prohibited s (100 Ml each), Cap Pyeevon Spas psules, Spasonof NF 960 capsules, 4, Proxywell Spas 2568 Capsules, Spas Plus 32 Capsules). d the fact that the trial is unlikely to view that the petitioner – Junaid Alam rdered accordingly. Appropriate bail t. ilitates against the most precious Constitution and in such a situation, ry embargo created under Section , decided on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047-pugned order only on the premise that ght. Despite the fact that the appellant than one and a half years, the trial is earned counsel appearing for the State ce it is to state that trial would take o antecedent involving the appellant. s set aside and the appellant is granted be imposed by the Trial Court. ody is more than some of the judicial tled to bail under Article 14 of the e petitioner's custody in this FIR is of e medicines that attracted violation of ed with the primafacie analysis of the ar to this case, there would be no e, subject to the compliance of terms , SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13

d s d s , , o m l s , n - t t s e e d l e f f e o s

¶13Without c this case, and fo order shall come CONDITIONS:

¶14Given abo shall be released satisfaction of th Magistrate/duty satisfied that if th

¶15While fu personal identific

1. AA

¶2Pas atte con

¶3Mob

4. E-M

¶16This orde

¶17The petit concerned Court influence, browb witnesses, Police of the case or dis

¶18Given the protect the memb one of the prima Consequently, it restriction is bein not of evidence commenting on the case's merits, in th r the reasons mentioned above, the p into force from the time it is uploaded ove, provided the petitioner is not req d on bail in the FIR captioned abov he concerned Court and due to una Magistrate. Before accepting the su he accused fails to appear, such surety urnishing a personal bond, the peti cation details: ADHAR number sport number (If available) and esting officer/court considers it appr nsiders the accused a flight risk. bile number (If available) Mail id (If available) er is subject to the petitioner's comply tioner shall abide by all statutory bo t(s) on all dates. The petitioner sh beat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or e officials, or any other person acquain ssuade them from disclosing such facts e background of allegations against th bers of society, detection squad and ary options until the filing of the clos t would be appropriate to restrict ng imposed based on the preponderan of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonabl he facts and circumstances peculiar to petitioner makes a case for bail. This d on this Court's official webpage. quired in any other case, the petitioner ve subject to furnishing bonds to the availability before any nearest Ilaqa urety, the concerned Court must be y can produce the accused. itioner shall mention the following

when the ropriate or

ing with the following terms. nd conditions and appear before the hall not tamper with the evidence, r promise, directly or indirectly, any nted with the facts and circumstances s to the Police or the Court. he petitioner, it becomes paramount to incapacitating the accused would be sure report or discharge, or acquittal. the possession of firearms. [This nce of the evidence of probability and le doubt; and as such, it is not to be

o s r e a e g e , y s o e . s d e

construed as an circumstances pe ammunition, if a days of release subject to the Ind them in case of a rules. Restricting society; it would offense.

¶19The cond and ensure the a abuse. In Moham Petition (Crimin bench of Hon'bl must not only h proportional to th must balance the conditions that w

¶20In Md. Ta

(Crl) 12225-2024 the petitioner is f to him today wil consequences."

¶21This bail indulges in any of this bail befor

¶22Any obse merits nor shall t intermediate sanction]. Given the na eculiar to this case, the petitioner shall any, along with the arms license to th from prison and inform the Invest dian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner s acquittal in this case, provided otherw g firearms would instill confidence d also restrain the accused from influen ditions mentioned above imposed by accused does not repeat the offense a mmed Zubair v. State of NCT of De al) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decide le Supreme Court holds that "The b have a nexus to the purpose that th he purpose of imposing them. The co e liberty of the accused and the nece would result in the deprivation of right ajiur Rahaman v. The State of West B 4, Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in P found involved in such like offence in ll liable to be withdrawn and the peti l is conditional, and the foundation non-bailable offense, the State shall re the Trial Court, which shall be at l ervation made hereinabove is neither a the trial Court advert to these commen ature of the allegations and the other l surrender all weapons, firearms, and he concerned authority within fifteen igator of the compliance. However, shall be entitled to renew and reclaim wise permissible under the concerned in the victim(s), their families, and ncing the witnesses and repeating the this court are to endeavor to reform and also to block the menace of drug elhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ ed on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge ail conditions imposed by the Court hey seek to serve but must also be ourts, while imposing bail conditions essity of a fair trial. While doing so, s and liberties must be eschewed." Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP Para 7, "It goes without saying that if future, the concession of bail granted itioner is bound to face the necessary al condition is that if the petitioner l file an application for cancellation liberty to cancel this bail. an expression of opinion on the case's nts.

r d n , m d d e m g t e t e s , P f d y r n s

¶23A certifie Advocate for the web page of this its authenticity, s the downloaded c

¶24Petition a disposed of.

28.04.2025 renubala

Whether speakin Whether reportab

ed copy of this order would not be n Petitioner can download this order al Court and attest it to be a true copy. such an officer can also verify its aut copy for attesting bonds. allowed in terms mentioned above. A

ng/reasoned: Yes

ble: No. needed for furnishing bonds, and any long with case status from the official If the attesting officer wants to verify thenticity and may download and use All pending applications, if any, stand (ANOOP CHITKARA)

JUDGE

y l y e d