Sahil Kumar @ Gora v. State Of Punjab

2023:PHHC:078073

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 29.05.2023 SAHIL KUMAR @ GORA ... Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL

Present:

Mr. SK Passi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Akshita Chauha, DAG Punjab.

**** HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)
               

   

      !  "
!#  ! $ "
!# %

   &  
!  ' ( ) "   ) %     *   +

 + ,     $    

 *   +

  *

*,     - . & !    * ,      .    "   !     
  !/",   ( )  "   )       /!    '   )   0      +       *  +  ,*   + +1

    *             + 

/  1    ,*   +/ 

-2- + ! +(+1          

  1   .  * 

   , 2+       *    "
!#  

    $       

  . $      4   3 $  In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1166/2023 titled as Chet Ram @ Ram Veer vs Union of India, respectively. 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. She, however, submits that the recovery effected in the present case falls under the commercial quantity and that Section 37 NDPS Act bars the grant of bail to the accused in the case of commercial quantity.

She further submits that the petitioner is a habitual offender, inasmuch as, another FIR of similar nature is pending against him and that most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Though the recovery allegedly effected in the present case falls under the commercial quantity, yet the fact remains that the petitioner has been in custody since 08.11.2020. Neither any recovery was effected from the petitioner nor he was named in the FIR. The petitioner was indicted on the disclosure statement of the co-accused.

-3As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, in another pending NDPS case, the petitioner is on bail and in one NDPS case, the petitioner stands acquitted. Some of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined. In such circumstances, 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.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Chet Ram @ Ram Veer's case (supra) has held as under:- 'Apparently the petitioner was acquitted in the case where he was charged with committing the offence under Section 307 IPC. As far as the other FIR alleging offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 is concerned, he has been enlarged on bail. Considering the circumstances especially that he has undergone detention for 3 and a half years and the conclusion of trial is most likely in the distant future, he is enlarged on bail subject to such conditions as the trial court deems appropriate to impose on him.

Special leave petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending application(s), if any, are disposed of'. 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. 29.05.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL) Aman Jain JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No