Karan Kumar Alias Gaba v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 29.08.2024 KARAN KUMAR ALIAS GABA ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent KAPIL KUMAR ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-23908-2024 (through V.C.) Mr. Varlin Garg, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM-M-32265-2024 Mr. Soloman Partap Singh, AAG, Punjab.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) These two petitions have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail pending trial in case F.I.R. No.123 dated 26.07.2023 registered under Section 22(c)/61/85 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station City Malout, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

As per the case of the prosecution, both the petitioners together were found to be in possession of 60 tablets of Etizolam i.e. 8.82 grams which is more than the notified commercial quantity i.e. 2.25 grams. 3.

Counsels for the petitioners submit that despite the fact that the petitioners are behind bars for more than 1 year and 1 month, not even a single witness could be examined out of total 15 cited witnesses. More so when majority of them are official witnesses. 4.

State Counsel is not in position to dispute the factual assertions made by counsel for the petitioner based on record. However, submits that both of them have criminal antecedents.

5.

Petitioner Kapil Kumar has four more cases including three under the NDPS Act.

6.

Faced with the situation, counsel representing petitioner Kapil Kumar submits that all the three cases under the NDPS Act are w.r.t. small quantity of heroin. In first case, the petitioner was found to be in possession of 3 grams of heroin, in the second case in possession of 10 grams of heroin and in the third case, he was found to be in possession of 15 grams of heroin. 7.

Petitioner Karan Kumar is also facing one more case under the NDPS Act. However, it is not disputed that he stands admitted to bail in the said case.

8.

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon order passed by Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha passed in

Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4169 of 2023 decided on 13.07.2023 wherein it has been held as under:

"4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re: formation of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally militates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."

9.

Earlier to Rabi Prakash's case (supra) also Apex Court has consistently held that the prolonged incarceration has to be considered dehors bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State of Gujarat", held as under:- "We are inclined to release the petitioner on bail only on the ground that he has spent about two years in custody and conclusion of trial will take some time.

Consequently, without expressing any views on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the custody period of the petitioner, this special leave petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Judge/ concerned Trial Court.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

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

10.

The above-said case was also a case under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the FIR had been registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the said Act. The case of the prosecution therein was that the recovery from the said petitioner (therein) was of commercial quantity. The Supreme Court had observed that the concession of bail was granted to the petitioner (therein) only on the ground that he had spent about two years in custody and the conclusion of trial will take some time.

11.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as "Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal" was pleased to grant concession of bail to the petitioner (therein) in a case where the custody was of 1 year and 7 months approximately. The relevant portion of the said order dated 07.02.2020 is as under: - "Leave granted.

This appeal arises out of the final Order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No.6787 of 2019. The instant matter arises out of application preferred by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in connection with Criminal Case No.146 of 2018 registered with Taherpur Police Station for offence punishable under Section 21C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. According to the prosecution, the appellant was found to be in possession of narcotic substance i.e. 46 bottles of

phensydryl cough syrup containing codeine mixture above commercial quantity.

The appellant was arrested on 21.07.2018 and continues to be in custody. It appears that out of 10 witnesses cited to be examined in support of the case of prosecution four witnesses have already been examined in the trial.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the rival submissions and considering the facts and circumstances on record, in our view, case for bail is made out. We therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under: (a) Subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, Nadia at Krishnagar, the appellant shall be released on bail.

(b) The Special Court may impose such other conditions as it deems appropriate to ensure the presence and participation of the appellant in the pending trial. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands allowed." 12.

The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titled as "Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India," observed as under: - "Leave granted.

This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in MCRC No.117/2022. The appellant is in custody since 18.06.2020 in connection with crime registered as N.C.B. Crime No.02/2020 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 8, 20, 27-AA, 28 read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

The application seeking relief of bail having been rejected, the instant appeal has been filed.

We have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, learned Senior Advocate in support of the appeal and Mr. Sanjay Jain,learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent. Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the length of custody undergone by the appellant, in our view the case for bail is made out.

We therefore, direct that:

(a) The appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within five days from today.

(b) The Trial Court shall release the appellant on bail subject to such conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose.

(c) The appellant shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(d) Any infraction shall entail in withdrawal of the benefit granted by this Order.

The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms."

13.

The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022 dated 01.08.2022 titled as "Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal" observed as under: - "As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf. 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 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." 14.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in view the incarceration suffered by the petitioners and the fact that till date none out of 15 cited witnesses could be examined, the present petitions are allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, the petitioners shall remain bound by the following conditions:

(i) The petitioners shall not mis-use the liberty granted. (ii) The petitioners shall not tamper with any evidence oral or documentary during the trial.

(iii) The petitioners shall not absent themselves on any date before the trial.

(iv) The petitioners shall not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioners shall deposit their passport, if any with the Trial Court.

(vi) The petitioner shall give their cellphone number to the police authorities and shall not change their cell-phone number without permission of the trial Court.

(vii) The petitioners shall not in any manner try to delay the trial. 16.

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by the Trial Court, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioners. 17.

Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case. 18.

A copy of this order be kept on the file of other connected case. August 29, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No