Gurpreet Singh v. State Of Punjab
- -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH 213+116 CRM-M-50503-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 21.08.2023 Gurpreet Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present :
Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. H.S. Sullar, Sr. DAG Punjab ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY , J.
1.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.97 dated 12.08.2022, registered under Sections 15, 25, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Barnala, District Barnala.
2.
Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for about 1 year. The alleged recovery was affected from the house of the petitioner but in his absence, which is non-commercial, it being 16 kg of Poppy pods. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of NDPS Act and 100 of CrPC were not complied with. The wife of the petitioner has suffered from tumour in her Uterus, for which she has been operated upon. Charges were framed on 21.03.2023 but none out of 14 PWs have been examined. Though, the petitioner is involved in 1 more case under the NDPS Act, in which he was convicted, however, his sentence has been suspended. In this regard, reliance is placed 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 18.08.2023 has been filed by learned State counsel. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars for the last 11 months and 12 days.
4.
Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the contraband in question was recovered from the house of the petitioner, thereafter, he was arrested and is involved in more case under the NDPS Act, wherein he was convicted. He is however unable to controvert the submissions made with regard to stage of the case and suspension of sentence has been granted to the petitioner after conviction.
5.
Heard.
6.
Hon'ble The Supreme Court 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 the possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 7.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 11 months and 12 days; convicted in another case, however, his sentence has been suspended; non-commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted in the present case; charges stand framed on 21.02.2023, however, out of 14 prosecution witnesses, none has yet been examined, the trial is likely to
- - take a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed. 8.
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 his 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.
9.
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.
10.
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 August 21, 2023 M.Kamra Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes / No Whether reportable :
Yes / No