Harminder Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 31.08.2023 Harminder Singh ...PeƟƟoner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the peƟƟoner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police StaƟon SecƟons 04.02.2020 STF Phase-IV 21, 29 of NDPS Act and 207 (Mohali), District of the Motor Vehicles Act, SAS Nagar (Mohali) 1.
The peƟƟoner incarcerated for violaƟng the above-menƟoned provisions of NarcoƟcs Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) per the FIR capƟoned above, has come up before this Court under SecƟon 439 CrPC seeking bail. 2.
Counsel for the peƟƟoner seeks bail on the ground that the peƟƟoner's custody is 3 years, 6 months and 23 days. Hence pre-trial incarceraƟon would cause an irreversible injusƟce to the peƟƟoner and family.
3.
While opposing the bail, the State counsel submits that as per the custody cerƟficate dated 29.08.2023, there are two more cases pending against the peƟƟoner one is under Prisons Act and another is under SecƟon 304 IPC. In addiƟon to the criminal history, the State contenƟon is that the trial is at an advanced stage and any observaƟon made by this court might impact its outcome.
REASONING:
4.
The prosecuƟon's case is that on receipt of prior informaƟon, the police officials laid down a barricade on 04.02.2020. They detected one Dzire car and signalled it to stop. The car was being driven by the peƟƟoner. AŌer that, the InvesƟgator gave him an offer under SecƟon 50 of the NDPS Act and he desired the search by Dy.S.P. In the
presence of Dy.S.P. the search of the car was conducted and the police recovered 1.20 Kg of heroin.
5.
Counsel for the peƟƟoner places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Subhabrata Roy @ Bapi Roy @ Roy Bapi Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.4637 of 2023, decided on 18.07.2023 and submits that in the said case under NDPS Act, the trial was at an advanced stage and the peƟƟoner in that case had a criminal history and despite that Hon'ble the Supreme Court had granted bail aŌer the custody of one year.
6.
The State counsel opposes the bail by submiƫng that consideraƟon of cough syrup in Subhabrata Roy @ Bapi Roy @ Roy's case (supra), would be hardly Rs.2000/-, whereas, in the present case, the tentaƟve price of around 1 Kg of heroin is more than Rs.1.00 Crore and further the impact of the drug, if was spread and sold to the society would have been catastrophic, which cannot be compared with the cough syrup. 7.
I have gone through the judgement of Subhabrata Roy @ Bapi Roy @ Roy's case (supra), and in the said case, the quanƟty which was involved 28 boƩles of cough syrup, whereas, in the present case, the quanƟty is involved 1.20 Kgs of heroin, which is four Ɵmes of the commercial quanƟty. Thus, the peƟƟoner is not enƟtled to bail in the light of the aforesaid judgment passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, which does not apply in favour of the peƟƟoner given the massive difference of the nature of the contraband i.e. in Subhabrata Roy @ Bapi Roy @ Roy's case, it was just cough syrup, whereas, in the present case it is more than 1 Kg of heroin. 8.
A perusal of the bail peƟƟon and the documents aƩached, primafacie points towards the peƟƟoner's involvement and trial is at advance stage, no case for bail is made out.
9.
The trial is at an advance stage, and any observaƟon by this court at this stage might prejudice the prosecuƟon, complainant, or the accused. 10.
Given above, the peƟƟoner fails to make a case for bail.
11. Any observaƟon made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. The peƟƟon is dismissed. All pending applicaƟons, if any, stand closed. However, considering the peƟƟoner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarceraƟon,
this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Oct 31, 2023, of which the prosecuƟon evidence be completed by Sep 30, 2023, and the remaining Ɵme to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired, and to conclude its hearing. To meet the deadline, an endeavour be made to speed up the process for service and to pass the necessary direcƟons in this regard. It is clarified that if expediƟng this trial disturbs the docket of the concerned court, then a balance be struck, and if, on this account, any delay happens, then an extension can be sought by menƟoning such reasons. It is clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condiƟon that neither the peƟƟoner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tacƟcs to delay the trial.
If they do so, this order of expediƟng the trial shall stand automaƟcally recalled by resorƟng to SecƟon 362, read with SecƟon 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. If any of the accused is on bail and fail(s) to aƩend the trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with law. It is clarified that if the trial is not concluded by the date menƟoned above, and if the delay is not aƩributable to the peƟƟoner, then the peƟƟoner may file an applicaƟon for bail before the trial court, which shall decide it expediƟously and consider the bail on the grounds of pre-trial custody, and all the previous orders of dismissal passed by the trial court or High Court shall not come in the way.
(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 31.08.2023 JyoƟ-II Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes Whether reportable:
No.