← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/21612/2018allowed

Paramjit Singh v. State Of Punjab

2018-07-18Mr. Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Decided on: 18.07.2018 Paramjit Singh ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN Present :

Mr. Sandeep Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sidakmeet Singh Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral) The petitioner prays for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.2 dated 04.01.2017, for offence punishable under Section 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station Sadar Rajpura, District Patiala. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 25.04.2018, while granting regular bail to co-accused - Sachin Ghai and Ajay Kumar Ghai, in CRM-M Nos.9255 and 4997 of 2018, the following order has been passed:- "Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the recovery was effected by the Assistant Sub-Inspector and on the date of the recovery, he was given the charge and rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector and as such, being an ad hoc Assistant Sub-Inspector, he was not competent to effect

the recovery. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the order dated 21.03.2018 passed in CRM-M No.5089 of 2018 wherein this Court has granted the concession of regular bail to the accused person on the ground that as per notification dated 03.09.1987 issued by the Government of Punjab, Department of Excise and Taxation, stating that only officers of the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector and above can exercise the powers and perform the duties specified under Sections 42 and 67 of the NDPS Act. Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment "Bikkar Singh vs State of Punjab", 2006(3) RCR (Criminal) 16, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "12. Secondly, it is evident from the crossexamination of PW-1 SI Gurmail Singh, who is the Investigating Officer in this case, that he was ad hoc A.

S.I and had not passed the departmental course for promotion as A.S.I. Further, it is also admitted by him that he was receiving pay of Constable Grade II at the time of occurrence of this case. Not only that, DW-1/ Constable Preet Inder Singh also proved from the summoned record that the substantive rank of SI Gurmail Singh was Constable Grade II and that his SI rank is only O.R.P. (own rank promotion). He also proved that SI Gurmail Singh had never passed any course for promotion as Head Constable or that of Assistant Sub Inspector. In his further cross examination, he admitted it to be correct that before promotion to the rank of SI, one has to pass the course of Head Constable and also that of ASI.

In this view of the matter, it can be safely inferred that he was not competent to exercise the powers and perform the duties specified in Sections 42 and 67 of the Act within the area of his jurisdiction."

Counsel for the State has already filed the affidavit of the Assistant Sub-Inspector namely Gurjit Singh, who has stated that he was given the charge and rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector on 12.12.2015 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala Range, Patiala vide order dated 12.12.2015 (Annexure R1) and at the time of

registration of the FIR No.2 on 04.01.2017, he was holding the charge and rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector and was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector on 25.07.2017.

Without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering the fact that Gurjit Singh was an ad hoc Assistant Sub-Inspector and following the dictum laid down in Bikkar Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed and the petitioners namely Sachin Ghai and Ajay Kumar Ghai are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate. However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail, if the petitioners are found misusing the concession of bail, in any manner." Counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Gurjeet Singh, has not disputed the factual position but opposed the prayer for bail. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

Without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering the fact that the co-accused of the petitioner have already been granted the concession of regular bail; he is not involved in any other case and also in view of the fact that Gurjit Singh was an ad hoc Assistant Sub-Inspector and, thus, following the dictum laid down in Bikkar Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.

However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for

cancellation of bail, if the petitioner is found involved misusing the concession of bail, in any manner.

18.07.2018 (ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN) yakub JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No