High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/26558/2021allowed

Ramesh @ Pappu v. State Of Haryana

2021-10-05Mr. Justice Vikas Bahl11 pages

-1-

"! # $!% & ''''

! ! ()

#*+ ,&)

! !

!) -&+ ,,.+ $!% ''''

/ !

# ! *! !*3!

56 78 &&

1 + &!

7 ,+ 2+ !*!&

3 #+ &+ !

393

!+ 4!+ ! ! !)&

3 3

3* 9 9

!+ 3%+ -! #4 !& !

: . & ) 4& !

+ % 3)& &&!

33*33%

*!9

/+ 4 !+

56 !*!&

6 !!

! ! + /3&!

!!&& &!

,<!

!)!% 2 =* & !

33*& !)!% & !

3 & 4&

>!&

-2-

+ )

! )!+ 33*& !)!% 2 =*

! =! 7??

=! 4!+ <& ,<!

3* 9

!+ 9 9! 33 9 !! 3& 3*9

, !!

!! &

4=+ 9!+ )!3!

! !&

! & 5!

3+ *3*& 33*& ! ! 9!

!)!& 9 4=

3& 4%& !& !

5!!

!*! ! 3% && 0 8 + 3& 9% &) % !&

393

! ! 3% ! !&& !439

# $

6 !*& 4 4) )

! +

!+ 4 9!

3& 3& & #3

!!&

6 !*& ! * !!& 9

9 9 !

3)&

+ 3!&

!3&

A&* $3

!& $* ! !&

! "

A&* $;43 , < ! !& $ $%! &+ 3& '!(

) # & +

9!+ && 33*& !)!%

3 !

-3-

>!&

+ @%+ 4%& @% 4 !3 + =* !)!%

& !*33% *!

!3 @% 3& 9!+ !+ 39!

3 93& !

&4 9 93& 3 !)!%

>!&

!!& 1

3& ! !

! 9 <& !* !& % &+ + !3 3=3% =

)3)& % >!&

!+ !&!

)! 4!

# 7 ,+ !3&

)!3 A&* A&* 33& !439  Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.965 of 2021 titled as Dheeren Kumar Jaina v. Union of India.  :&* !& - titled as Ankush Kumar @ Sonu v.

State of Punjab reported as 2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 84; which was further challenged in the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide SLP (Criminal) Diary No.42609 of 2018 and the same was upheld.  :&* !& - in CRM-M-20177-2020 titled as Narcotic Control Bureau v. VipanSood and another and the same was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.08.2021 in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5852/2021.  Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2020 titled as "Amit Singh @ Moni v. Himachal Pradesh.  Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal AppealNo.827 of 2021 titled as Mukarram Hussain v. State of Rajasthan and another.

-4-

 Judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M 10343 of 2021 titled as "Ajay Kumar @ Nannu v. State of Punjab". 5!!+ !3

A&* ivision Bench of this Court in CRM-8262-2021 in CRA-S-3721-SB of 2015 titled as, Harpal Singh v. National Investigating Agency and another, dated 31.08.2021, wherein the Division Bench was pleased to grant suspension of sentence in a case where the recovery was of commercial quantity. It has been argued that in the said Division Bench judgment, it had been noticed that the grounds for regular bail stand on better footing than for suspension of sentence, which is after conviction.

>!& # 3+ &+ 4& !)!&

3 93& *!9 &+ +

!& 9 3)&

6 !!

,<! +

3 < 2 =* 4=%!&

6 & #!

933

)33* *) &&

8 2

,<!

% =9 #4 33*33% *!9

) !

3& -! :*3+ 3& !&

% 3&

3 #?- !)&

% 3& &A* 3& !!

& )!

!3!

&& ) =93&* 4 + 9

3 !&&

! +

9 =9

/+ 3!& #

>!&

!43 4& #!

8 2

!!&& !

!&+ 3% 33

-5-

) 93& 9 33*&

9! ) 3&

/ !& 3!&

!3 !!& 93& 9

,<!

9 ! =! 7??

3* 9 3!* 4!

! 9 9!

&& ! 3% 3& 9% &) 3& && 0 8

% !&

393

!*! ! 3% 3!&% ! !&& !4)

!!& & &

,<!

4= 933

*! 93& 9

*!9

3 4%& !& !

$* $3

!& #4!;

33% &!& *! 9!

3 !)!&

+ 9! 33*& 33*33% 3)&

!+ 3& 3& A 3& )!3

!+ &!& )!% 43

! *!& !3%* + !

&!*

!) # 7 ,

!*! A&* ! ! !&& !439 %

& '( )' *+,

./# / .

01/ '

/ - !'

3 # #

( 3

' '

-6-

(# 3 4'

( ' (

# ( '

3( #

# *

( '

( ( (

3( '

& # ' '

4' 3( ( #

( '

(# (

( ' ( #

' 6

# '

' #

' ( # ( (

$;43 , < ,3= ;

4!)&

!)& !3%

3)&

!4&

3 *

9! &

! !% &

33 ! !

4!! 9& 4* 3& = &! ! * 9 3& 9& <3)3%

33 ! &!& )9 +

33 ! @&

A&* 339& &%

!& $*

+", "

+ -

" . $ $%!& 4)&

+ + )!% &443 93&

-7-

&!& &!* ! !3+ 9!

3& 343 !)!%

! 3&+ A3% 9& )!3

,&&3%+

&% 1

3!&%

!& ! ! 9+ <& !* !& ) 9+ + !3 3=3% = 3* + !+ )9

C"6

)3)& % 9* )!

!!&& !

! 33 )

+ &

9! *!9 ) 3&+

& A 3& >!&

*3*& )! 9! !)!% !3 @% )3)&+ ! $;43 ! 933 )+ 4 !*43

3 933 &!*

!& &% ! + *!& 43?

# A&* ! 4* && !! In Criminal Appeal No.965 of 2021 titled as Dheeren Kumar Jaina v. Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where allegation in the chargesheet was with respect to 120 kg of contraband i.e. "ganja", thus, being of commercial quantity, was pleased to grant bail after setting aside the order of the High Court where the said application for grant of regular bail had been rejected.

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a detailed judgment titled as Ankush Kumar @ Sonu v. State of Punjab reported as 2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 84, had considered the provision of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in extenso and had granted bail in a case which involved commercial quantity. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under:

-8-

" xxx--xxx--xxx But, so far as second part of Section 37 (1) (b) (ii), i.e. regarding the satisfaction of the Court based on reasons to believe that the accused would not commit 'any offence' after coming out of the custody, is concerned, this Court finds that this is the requirement which is being insisted by the State, despite the same being irrational and being incomprehensible from any material on record. As held above, this Court cannot go into the future mental state of the mind of the petitioner as to what he would be, likely, doing after getting released on bail. Therefore, if this Court cannot record a reasonable satisfaction that the petitioner is not likely to commit 'any offence' or 'offence under NDPS Act' after being released on bail, then this court, also, does not have any reasonable ground to be satisfied that the petitioner is likely to commit any offence after he is released on bail. Hence, this satisfaction of the Court in this regard is neutral qua future possible conduct of the petitioner."

The Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.42609 of 2018 filed against the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Further, vide order dated 25.02.2021 in CRM-M-20177-2020, a Coordinate Bench of this Court granted regular bail to an accused who was involved in a case wherein recovery was of 3.8 kgs of "charas" (commercial quantity) after being in custody for 1 year and 7 months. The said order was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.08.2021 in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5852/2021 titled as "Narcotic Control Bureau v. Vipan Sood and another".

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 12.10.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2020 titled as "Amit Singh @ Moni v. Himachal Pradesh" was pleased to grant regular bail in a case involving 3 kg

-9-

and 800 grams of "charas" primarily on the ground of substantial custody and also, the fact that the trial would likely take time to conclude. In Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2021 titled as Mukarram Hussain v. State of Rajasthan and another, the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 16.8.2021 was also pleased to grant bail wherein the quantity of the contraband was commercial in nature.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M 10343 of 2021 titled as Ajay Kumar @ Nannu v. State of Punjab and other connected matters, vide Order dated 31.03.2021, after taking into consideration the stipulations of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, was pleased to grant regular bail in a case involving commercial quantity and a condition was imposed on the petitioner therein while granting the said bail and the said condition was incorporated in para 21 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

"21. However, the petitioners are granted regular bail subject to the condition that they shall not commit any offence under the NDPS Act after their release on bail and in case of commission of any such offence by them after their release on bail, their bail in the present case shall also be liable to be cancelled on application to be filed by the prosecution in this regard."

Further, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31.08.2021 passed in CRM-8262-2021 in CRA-S-3721-SB of 2015 titled as, Harpal Singh v. National Investigating Agency and another, granted suspension of sentence in a case where the recovery was of commercial quantity. In the abovementioned order, the Division Bench had taken into consideration the right vested with an accused person/convict under Article 21 of the Constitution of India with regard to speedy trial. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Lokesh Chadha; (2021) 5 SCC 724 was also taken into account and the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act were

-10-

considered and the sentence of the applicant-appellant therein was suspended after primarily considering the period of custody of the applicant-appellant therein and also the fact that the appeal was not likely to be heard in near future. Reference in the order was also made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Daler Singhv. State of Punjab; 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 316 and the view taken in Daler Singh's case (supra) was reiterated and followed. 6 4) A&*+ & *!& !*3!

& 4!

* !

)

! !@! # 7 ,+ )! ! = &! !

!& &% 9! ! ! !*43

! &% &@+ $;43 ! 933 )! $* ! *!& ) )3)* !3 @%

/ 3

+ ! ! )!3 !*43

!& 3!&

&% 3

*! !*3!

!)!+

! & 93& 4A # 7 ,

,!&*3%+

339&

&!& !3& !*3!

!* 43?!% 4& !3 ?

% *!+ 4A 4* !@!& %

33 4& 339* &

933 9 )& &!* !3

933

!!D ?

! 9

933

4! !3 & <&+ 3

! < &

33 3!

&+ !

-11-

33 &!3% !

&!3% = % &+ ! !

! %

! @& 9 && ! &3* !

3 !

9 )&

6 4! % 4) &+

! 33 34!% )

3 33 4! !

$9)!+ * & 4) 33 !& 3 < ! ! !3 93&

!& & &3% 4!) &

! 3%

&A&*

!"#$% &'(&() &

=*?!&

F?7 E!

!43 F?7