Vishal v. State Of Punjab





IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-36152-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 02.08.2023 Vishal ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present :

Mr. GPS Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Aditya Kapoor, AAG Punjab ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.

1.

Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.233 dated 11.09.2021, registered under Sections 21, 21(c), 27(a) and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Maqboolpura, Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.

2.

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year and about 11 months. The alleged recovery was effected from the vehicle of which he was an occupant and not from his conscious possession. Charges have been framed however none out of 31 prosecution witnesses have been examined. Co-accused Sunil Masih and Jugal Kishore have been granted bail by this Court vide orders dated 24.04.2023 and 04.07.2023, Annexures P-3 and P-5, after being in custody for 1 year and 7 months and about 1 year 10 months, respectively. Petitioner is involved in one more case under the NDPS Act, wherein he is on bail.


 He places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble The Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3.

The custody certificate dated 01.08.2023, filed by learned State counsel is taken on record, as per which, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 10 months and 17 days.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that recovery in the case is of commercial quantity of contraband along with drug money from the co-accused and two pistols of .32 bore from the petitioner. He is however unable to controvert the submissions regarding the stage of the case, co-accused having been granted bail by this Court and petitioner being on bail in other FIR. 5.

Heard.

6.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India 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". 7.

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No.6690/2022 decided on 25.01.2023 observed that in case of long custody period, involving quantity recovered to be of commercial nature, where the trial is yet to commence, though charges had been framed, the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be dispensed with. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRMM-57386-2022, decided on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by


 Hon'ble The Supreme Court and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months. In the case of Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, the Division Bench of this Court observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. Similarly, in the case of Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon'ble The Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In the case of Munasi Masih vs.

State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, decided on 06.02.2023, this Court granted bail to a first offender from whom commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered and only 2 out of 13 PWs have been examined, by observing that in view of delayed trial, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent and the petitioner can be granted bail, keeping in mind the right to a speedy trial as envisaged Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

8.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the 1 year 10 months and 17 days; on bail in other FIR; co-accused have been granted bail by this Court; though charges have been framed, however, none out of 31 prosecution witnesses have yet examined; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted bearing in mind


 the right to a speedy trial, thus the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.

9.

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 him 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. 10.

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.


 11.

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) JUDGE 02.08.2023 S.Sharma(syr) Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No