← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/27405/2022allowed

Jatinder Kumar @ Shanty v. State Of Punjab

2023-09-13Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill3 pages

2023:PHHC:120094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 13.09.2023 JATINDER KUMAR @ SHANTY ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. Naveen Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. CL Pawar, Additional AG Punjab.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) Through this petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.48 dated 29.03.2021, registered under Sections 22 and 25 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Doraha, Police District Khanna, District Ludhiana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case; that the allegations against the petitioner is that he was sitting in the car on the back seat from which the alleged recovery was effected; that the petitioner is neither the driver nor the owner of the said car; that though extent of contraband i.e. 500 injections of Buprnorphine and 500 injections of Avil allegedly recovered in the present case, falls under commercial quantity, yet the fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 2 years, 4 months and 10 days and that out of total 13

-2prosecution witnesses, only 2 have been examined, so far. It is further submitted that there is no other case registered or pending against the petitioner, at least of a similar nature.

In support of his contentions, learned counsel relies upon the order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769-2022, titled as 'Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. State of West Bengal'.

On the other hand, learned State counsel, while opposing the grant of bail to the petitioner, submits that recovery of contraband effected in the present case, falls under commercial quantity and that Section 37 NDPS Act bars the grant of bail to the accused in case of commercial quantity. It is further submitted that material witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, the petitioner be not granted the concession of regular bail.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Indisputably, extent of contraband i.e. 500 injections of Bupronorphine and 500 injections of Avil recovered in the present case, falls under commercial quantity, but the fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody for the last 2 years, 4 months and 10 days. Most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. Trial is unlikely to conclude any time soon. There is no other case registered or pending against the petitioner, at least of a similar nature. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan, while granting the benefit of bail to the petitioner therein, has held as under:

-3- "The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21 (c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.

During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."

In view of the above, this Court finds that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Resultantly, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 13.09.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No