Ryasti Singh v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32275-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.08.2023 Ryasti Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present:
Mr. GS Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
*** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.
1.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.258 dated 29.10.2022, registered under Section 15(b) of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.
2.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for last about 10 months. The alleged recovery was of non-commercial quantity of contraband, it being 10 kgs. of poppy husk. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not complied with while effecting the recovery. Two more cases are pending against the petitioner wherein also non-commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from him and he is on bail. In this regard, he relies on the judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
Charges were framed on 08.02.2023 and none out of 19 PWs has yet been examined.
3.
The custody certificate dated 21.08.2023, filed by learned State counsel is taken on record, as per which, the petitioner is behind bars for 9 months and 24 days.
4.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground the petitioner was apprehended at the spot and there are multiple FIRs registered against him. He is however unable to controvert the submissions made regarding the stage of the case and petitioner being on bail in other cases.
5.
Heard.
6.
Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." Reiterating in Prabhakar Tewari vs. State of UP and another, (2020) 11 SCC 648, it was observed that, "The offence alleged no doubt is grave and serious and there are several criminal cases pending against the accused. These factors by themselves cannot be the basis for refusal of prayer for bail." 7.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for last 9 months and 24 days; on bail in other cases; recovery being non-commercial quantity of
contraband, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case; charges have been framed on 08.02.2023 and none out of 19 prosecution witnesses, has been examined so far; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
8.
As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of. (v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.
9.
It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 10.
In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations. ( AMAN CHAUDHARY ) 23.08.2023 JUDGE ashok Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No