Daler Kumar Alias Massu v. State Of Punjab
!
"
Present:
Mr. Vipin Mahajan , Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG Punjab.
# $
&'()& The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS, has been invoked for the 2nd time for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No. 73 dated 08.10.2023 under Section 22 (C), 273A, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 Police Station Ghuman Kalan, and District Gurdaspur Punjab. (Offence U/s 29 of NDPS Act added later on).
2.
'*+, Facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:3
!
"#$
%%
&%&%'
%'!% %% %%
( '% &
% )**%'+,%
'%
% %)**(&
(% %(&
%)** % %%
'
%!
' % %!
%
%(&
% %%
'% ( % % %%!
'' % % ! %'%(% +
%% %%%
(
% % % -%! %%! .
% %
%'/ '
% % 0 %1
)2)**+)%(%'%'
(%
'% ' % '% % % *
!
'
!% ( %' !%% %
%
!* % !
'
% %'! '%
( !&% '' %+ 3 ' ( (
% % '%'%%
'% %' % (0 %1!&%% % '%'&%(
% % ' % 4'
!
% %
'
% '% ! 56$$ 4'
!
% + 2%'&%% 4'
!
%
'% %%%
'!4 '% % % %
" % '%
&% % %+ 7 (% % %' .8 / ( '' % 0 %1( %
% +%(% '% ( %'&%(#$ % (% 2 +6$$6$$ % (% 2 #$$#$$ # % (%
"$$"$$ 2 +"9 $$: '% '%%%
'%'' %0 %1!&%% % %'
%'%(%
% 4'
!
% +%!&%% %%'&%% '% ' %
'' % '% % ' % %
% '%
+%
% (% % % &%
+ '% ' '%%'&% ( %
;%%(('% '
%%
+%'' %0 %1 !&%% %!%%
56$$ 4' !
% 2 + "9 $$: '% ' %
'% ((% '%3 ## #9 <"(0= ' "6+ - % & !
"#$%=+
( % ( >2
%' 2% !% %+ 2
!% (%&%
+
% % ! %
' '
?
-.+).+/-., .
0)1'23 -3 +1) 4)+/+/-.)&
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and recovery of alleged contraband i.e., 4500 loose white coloured intoxicant tablets was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner. He further argued that the petitioner is in custody since 11.10.2023, wherein investigation is complete, challan stands presented and nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner. .
0)1'23 -3 +1) +'+) On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent3State and has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year 5 months and 23 days. Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the recovery 4500 loose while coloured tablets alongwith the drug money of Rs.17,800/3 was effected from the petitioner. Additionally he submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in other case as well. 4.
.'2(,/, Considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e., 1 year, 5 months and 26 days added with the fact that investigation is complete, challan stands presented on 05.04.2024, charges have been framed on 02.05.2024 and out of total 12 prosecution witnesses, 4 have been examined so far. This
Court is sanguine of the fact that conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for uncertain period, wherein "! % * %4'% ? and it would also violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in
Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:3 #+ ( % % ( ' *
% '% %
(
'% '% %
%%! % !% %&% !%
'% ( +@%&% %%%
'% ' %%%&% % !%%
'% '' % % %
%'('((% '% ! %% % %'(%( % % %
%'(% ((% '% +A% % ('%(' *
% '%
% (! % % %
% *
'%' %.'%&%%4
%/ %4'% +3 ( % %(% %! '
'
%&%!%% (%% % % %
%!%
''%% (
% % + % ' *
% '%
'%+ +%% !% % (! % % % '% (%* %'
%
' %!%&% %%4%' %( *' '% !%% '' '!%! % !%( %'
% %%! !%&%@ % ' +A% ''
%% %'%
%'%% %
! '' % % %
%('
%'' '% (' %+ 5+ , %
%'
% (' %% !%
%% %%%'' % % %
% % %
%!%
%% %&% '% ( % '%
+(%
(('%% ( %'%
% '' % %
' % !%%(
'
% *'
' (%' % %% ( %+
'% %%%'' % '
%
% (' (%
(('% !
%
% %-%!%
(('%+ % ( '' %
(%
(('%
% % % %4
%(%(!%
&' % !%('* % %%'
%
% ' %+
%'%
(%* %'
%%%% '' % ( :%((% % !%% '' %(%((% '%
( % %( '((% '% % % ' '+ % &%%%%% ( '' %
%4%% (' %&% = % % '%( ! '
B4
%' 5<( % %( ='%% "9+ %-
(
' ''%
!%% % != % !
%
%' 5< % % ( ='%% "9+ 6+ %% %-%!% %! * % %%
' (%
%' '' % % '%' *' ' +%%%
%&% %
( '
%
(
'' % % %&% % !% % %-%% ('
%#"(%
%('%% % &%'
%
' %
!
% '%! 2%:
"#=
#$"9.5/2 2. /5"<C#$"9.6/2%'% %4 8 % .2++8+/5$C.#$"9/"$ <6 <+% ' !' (% & (! !%%
!% ' %4
% %'% %' % &%%
% ' &+3 ( #$"9."/ DB<$
!' % ( %
+ %'
%(%% '% % !
!!&+ %(= *!
."$/# 6<6 ' !
%&% % !' &+1
:B % 2"#5 '59<! !%% % +2%(%% '%
%B % &+@'
2""
!6<%% !
%&%
(! % % %( %%4'% +% &
(! %%(% %: % !% % % %
& (! '%
!''
+ 9+@%&% % !% % % ! !%
% %&%' %+% %( (! % %
5 % '% ( % * % %
% % '% (%%% !%%4%' %*'
%
% '
% +
'
(% (! !% ' !% ' !
%('
'% %%!
% (!
+?
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in "!"
# $% !&'() ( *( +
+ Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre3conviction period of the under3trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
As far as the contention of learned State counsel with regard to the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this Court rendered in CRM3M32591432022 titled as ,) -
&.
" -/* decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of
pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail. 5.
)2/)3
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail on furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. In the afore3said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. $
%% ,%%
%
% % A% ,%%% !
A%