← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/53853/2021allowed

Ved Ram v. Union Of India

2022-09-28Mr. Justice Harnaresh Singh Gill3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.09.2022 VED RAM

...Petitioner

Versus

UNION OF INDIA ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. DD Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the respondent-UOI.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) CRM-34907-2022 Application is allowed, as prayed for.

Annexures P-12 to P-20 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.

Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place. CRM-M-53853-2021 Through this 2nd petition, the petitioner seeks regular bail in case bearing NCB Crime No.14/2020 dated 26.02.2020, registered under Sections 8, 20, 23(c), 27(A), 28, 29, 60 and 62 of the NDPS Act, the first one having been dismissed on merits on 19.03.2021. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there were seven accused in the present case; that the complaint was registered at the behest of Intelligence Officer; that no recovery was effected from the

-2petitioner; that the allegation against the petitioner is that the drug money amounting to Rs.3,05,000/- was effected from him and that the petitioner has been in custody since 26.02.2020. He further submits that out of 32 prosecution witnesses, only 5/9 have been examined so far and that there is no other case registered and/or pending against the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the judgments passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal No.4173/2022 titled Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs State of West Bengal, decided on 04.08.2022; Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022 titled Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs State of West Bengal, decided on 01.08.2022 and a Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-43988-2019 titled 'Budhi Prakash vs Union of India, NCB Chandigarh', decided on 20.01.2020.

Per contra, while opposing the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, learned State counsel does not dispute the custody period of the petitioner. He, however, submits that the petitioner had actively participated in the occurrence, inasmuch as, he is the one who had delivered 1.474 kg charas to Shah Nawaz Gulam Choratwala (the coaccused) and have received the drug money, which was recovered from him.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.02.2020. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, no contraband was recovered from the petitioner and only the drug money was recovered. There is no other

-3case registered and/or pending against the petitioner. Most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In such circumstances, the trial of the case would take a long time to conclude. Therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. In view of the above and without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned. 28.09.2022 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No