Gurbir Singh Alias Gopi v. State Of Punjab

In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:- 15.03.2023 Gurbir Singh @ Gopi ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Luvinder Sofat, DAG, Punjab, assisted by ASI Rajinder Kumar.

***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J . (Oral) 1.

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.03 dated 4.2.2020 under Sections 21/25/29 of NDPS Act at Police Station SSOC, Amritsar.

2.

It is the case of prosecution that one Vikramjit Singh @ Vicky who was in custody, being an under-trial in some other case, made a disclosure statement to the effect that Akashdeep Singh, Gurbir Singh, Simarjit Kaur and Balraj Singh indulged in smuggling of 'heroin' from across the border i.e. from Pakistan and that Akashdeep Singh and Gurbir Singh on the said day were carrying 'heroin' and in case a raid is conducted, they could be caught red-handed. It is further the

- 2 - case of prosecution that pursuant to the aforesaid information, the police swung into action and conducted raid at the nominated place where both Akashdeep and Gurbir were found. While 500 grams of 'heroin' was found from the personal search of Gurbir Singh, the search of Akashdeep Singh yielded recovery of Rs.300 only. It is further case of prosecution that the search of the motorcycle of Gurbir Singh, which actually belongs to a cousin of Gurbir Singh yielded recovery of another 500 grams of 'heroin'. It is further the case of prosecution that upon interrogation, the said Gurbir Singh made a disclosure statement and got recovered another 2 kilograms of 'heroin'.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that coaccused of petitoner have already been granted bail by this Court and since the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of about 3 years and 1 month, he deserves to be released on bail. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner was caught red-handed at the spot while in possession of 'commercial quantity' of contraband, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has however, been informed that the petitioner, as on date, has been behind bars since the last about 3 years and 1 month and that charges are yet to be framed.

5.

This Court has considered rival submissions.

6.

Since the petitioner seeks grant of bail mainly on account of long custody, it is apposite to refer to a few judgments of Hon'ble Supreme

- 3 - Court in this regard wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the concession of bail solely on ground of long custody: Case Number Date of Decision Title of Case Period which the accused had undergone when granted bail by Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Criminal Appeal No.

245/2020 07.02.2020 Chitta Biswas @ Subhas Vs.

the State of West Bengal 1 year and 7 months Criminal Appeal No.

668/2020 12.10.2020 Amit Singh Moni Vs.

State of Himachal Pradesh 2 years and 7 months Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

5769/2022 01.08.2022 Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs.

the State of West Bengal 1 year and 7 months Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

of 04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs.

the State of West Bengal 1 year and 6 months Criminal Appeal No.

of 05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India 2 years 1 month and 17 days Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

5530-2022 22.08.2022 Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. the State of Gujarat About 2 years Criminal Appeal No.

2027-2022 22.11.2022 Karnail Singh Vs. The State of Odisha 1 Year and 8 months Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.

8653-2022 25.11.2022 Karim Adaldar Vs. The State of West Bengal 10 months 7.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in yet another judgment dated 25.01.2023 arising out of SLP No.6690-2022 titled Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh has granted bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act where the accused alongwith co-accused was found in possession of 'commercial' quantity of Ganja and had been behind

- 4 - bars since the last two and a half years while observing that in the absence of any criminal antecedents, the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be dispensed with at that stage, particularly when there was delay in conclusion of trial.

8.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the long custody of the petitioner i.e more than 3 years and 1 month and the fact that the trial is yet to commence as charges are not framed, the petition merits acceptance and is hereby accepted. 9.

The petition, as such, is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

10.

It is, however, directed that in case the petitioner is found to be indulging in similar offence again, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court. 15.03.2023 ( GURVINDER SINGH GILL) mohan JUDGE Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No