- Court
- High Court of Punjab and Haryana
- Decided
- 13 December 2024
- Bench
- Kuldeep Tiwari
- Case no.
- CRM-M 49838/2024
Judgment
KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(Oral)
1. Through the instant petition, filed under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner prays for grant of relief of regular bail in case FIR No.146 dated 06.12.2023 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (charges framed under Sections 22/29 of the NDPS Act), registered at Police Station Sadar Hariana, District Hoshiarpur.
2. On asking for the relief (supra), learned counsel for the petitioner submits, that as on today, no prosecution witness has been examined, out of total 10 witnesses, as cited by the prosecution, in the final report. She further submits that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of more than 01 year, as on today. Finally, she submits that the petitioner is not involved in one other case, nor he has been previously convicted, in any other case, and has clean antecedents.
3. In the instant case, the petitioner was apprehended with 259 MANPREET SINGH grams of intoxicant powder, containing the salt 'Tramadol Hydrochloride'
CRM-M-49838-2024 2
which undisputedly falls under the ambit of commercial quantity, as per the schedule attached with the NDPS Act.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner had addressed the arguments on merits of the instant case, to the effect, that some of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act, has not been complied with. However, this Court, refrains itself from making any observation on such submissions.
5. In deference to the directions issued by the coordinate Bench of this Court, by drawing an order dated 16.10.2024, status report dated
09.12.2024, by way of affidavit of Mr. Narinder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Rural, District Hoshiarpur, on behalf of the respondent-State of Punjab, furnished by the learned State counsel today in the Court. The same is taken on the record.
6. Learned State counsel, on instructions imparted to him from the investigating officer concerned, opposed the grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner, on the ground, that the recovery effected in the instant case, falls under the ambit of commercial quantity, and therefore, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, comes into operation.
7. Learned State counsel has also placed on record the custody certificate dated 12.12.2024, qua the petitioner, today in the Court. The same is taken on record. He further on instructions submits that challan stands presented on dated 13.03.2024, and charges were framed on dated
02.08.2024.
8. It is not in dispute that no prosecution witness has been examined, out of total 10 witnesses, as cited by the prosecution in the final report, whereas, the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year,
CRM-M-49838-2024 3
and 05 days, as on today. So far as, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, is concerned, this Court, in a number of judgments has already observed that long incarceration would dilute the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
9. This Court finds vigor from the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Rabi Prakash Versus The State of Odisha", Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169 of 2023, wherein, the Court has also discussed the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, in such like cases of long custody. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment contained in para No.4 is reproduced as under:- "4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent – State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."
10. In the recent judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2024 (3) RCR (Criminal), 494, it has been specifically held that the right to speedy trial of offenders facing criminal charges is implicit in the broad sweep and content of Article 21. The relevant extract of the same reads as under:- "18. Criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and so, never write off any 2024.12.13 14:23 criminal as beyond redemption. This humanist
CRM-M-49838-2024 4
fundamental is often missed when dealing with delinquents, juvenile and adult. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner a future. When a crime is committed, a variety of factors is responsible for making the offender commit the crime. Those factors may be social and economic, may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, the result of value erosion or parental neglect; may be, because of the stress of circumstances, or the manifestation of temptations in a milieu of affluence contrasted with indigence or other privations.
19. If the State or any prosecuting agency including the court concerned has no wherewithal to provide or protect the fundamental right of an accused to have a speedy trial as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution then the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. Article 21 of the Constitution applies irrespective of the nature of the crime.
20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner is still an accused; not a convict. The over-arching postulate of criminal jurisprudence that an accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoever stringent the penal law may be."
11. This Court has heard the rival submission of the parties concerned, and is of the view that the instant petition is amenable to be allowed; considering the period of incarceration suffered by the petitioner, stage of the trial; and specifically the fact that except the instant FIR, the petitioner is not involved in any other case, under the NDPS Act, or in any other case, and he has not been previously convicted.
12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, further incarceration of the petitioner is not warranted at all, at this stage. 2024.12.13 14:23 Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed.
CRM-M-49838-2024 5
13. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
14. In case, in future, the petitioner is found to be involved, in such like similar offences, the respondent-State is at liberty, to file an appropriate application for cancellation of the bail granted to the petitioner.
15. However, anything observed hereinabove shall have no effect on the merits of the case and is meant for deciding the present petition only.
(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
December 13, 2024 Manpreet
Case details
Parties and counsel
CRM-M-49838-2024 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (212) CRM-M-49838-2024 Date of Decision : 13.12.2024 Inderjit Singh @ Indu …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Ms. Roopse Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Karnadeep Singh Deswal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab. ****
Source: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.