Raj Kumar Alias Raju v. State Of Punjab

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh Date of Decision:-10.1.2024 Raj Kumar @ Raju ... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ... Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Mr. J.S. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Singh Chauhan, Asst. Advocate General, Haryana ***** FIR No.

Dated Police Station Section/s 13.1.2021 Bholath, Kapurthala 22(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral) 1.

The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR. 2.

As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner was apprehended by the police on 13.1.2021 on suspicion and 70 injections of 'AVIL' 10 ml. each and 70 injections of 'Buprenorphine Retogesic' 2 ml. were recovered from the polythene envelope thrown by him.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 2 years and 11

( 2 ) months and since the trial is proceeding at snail's pace, the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period. 4.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since it is a case, wherein the petitioner was caught red-handed while in possession of 'commercial' quantity of contraband, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last about 2 years, 11 months and 28 days. It has also been informed that the petitioner stands involved in 4 other cases including one case under NDPS Act. Learned State counsel has informed that as on date 1 PW out of the cited 13 PWs has been examined. 5.

This Court has considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court. 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:- 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.

04.08.2022 Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs.

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

05.08.2022 Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India 2 years 1 month and 17 days

( 3 ) 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 25.1.2023 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 the NDPS Act could be dispensed with at that stage, particularly when there was delay in conclusion of trial. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 15.3.2023 passed in SLP (Criminal) No.1166/2023 titled 'Chet Ram @ Ram Veer Vs. Union of India' has also granted bail to the accused on account of long custody, although he was also involved in another case under NDPS Act.

8.

Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly long custody of the petitioner i.e. about 2 years, 11 months and 28 days and the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as only 1 PW out of the cited 13 PWs has 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.

( 4 ) 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. 10.1.2024 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No