Gurnam Singh Alias Thammu v. State Of Punjab

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

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Attri, AAG, Punjab.

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

The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.01, dated 30.11.2017, under Sections 18, 21, 25, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, Police Station S.S.O.C. Fazilka, District Fazilka. 2.

It is the case of prosecution that on 30.11.2017 a secret information was received by the police to the effect that Mukhtiar Singh @ Kali, Gurnam Singh, Surjit Singh had taken land on lease beyond the fencing area between India and Pakistan and that they smuggle 'Heroin' from across the border with the help of their agriculture equipment and pass on the same to Sammar Singh @ Sharma (petitioner) and to Sandeep. It is further the case of prosecution that

- 2 - upon receipt of aforesaid information a raid was conducted and Mukhtiar Singh @ Kali and Gurnam Singh were apprehended while they were coming on their tractor and from whom 'Heroin' weighing 3.2 kg was recovered. It is further the case of prosecution that the aforesaid two were also accompanied by Surjit Singh but he managed to escape from the spot.

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 4 months, he deserves to be released on bail. 4.

On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner along with co-accused was found in conscious possession of 'commercial quantity' of contraband, no case for grant of bail is made out. It has been pointed out that the petitioner has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. It has been further informed that the petitioner, as on date, has been behind bars since the last about 3 years and 4 months. Learned State counsel has further informed that, in the present case, 6 out of cited 18 PWs have been examined. 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 Court in this regard wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has granted the concession of bail solely on ground of long custody:

- 3 - 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 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

- 4 - 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 4 months and the fact that only 6 out of cited 18 PWs have been examined so far, 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