Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lovepreet Singh Alias Love vs State Of Punjab on 30 September, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129409
[334] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M--36284-2024
Date of Decision : 30.09.2024
Lovepreet Singh alias Love ...Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
Coram : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Solomon Partap Singh, AAG, Punjab.
***
PANKAJ JAIN,
JAIN J. (ORAL)
[1] Prayer is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.183 dated 20.12.2022 registered under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Section 473 of the IPC, 1860 at Police Station Kot Ise Khan, District Moga.
[2] As per the case of the prosecution, on the basis of secret information, the petitoner was apprehended by the Poli Police, ce, while he was travelling in a Swift Car bearing No.CH No.CH-01/BQ-8106 8106 and a polythene envelope containing 300 grams of Heroin was recovered from him. Further allegation is that an amount of Rs.3,50,000/ Rs.3,50,000/- was recovered on the disclosure statement made by the petitioner.
[3] Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no link evidence to suggest that the said amount is drug amount to invite an offence punishable under Section 27-A 27 A of the NDPS act, 1985. He further submits that from the statement of PW-2, PW 2, it is evident that whole of the case of the 1 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2024 01:53:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129409 CRM-M-36284 36284-2024 -2- prosecution has fallen flat. Testimony of PW PW-2 2 has been placed on record as PW-3, 3, which is totally in contrast to the version given by PW PW-1. The two statements when juxtaposed, ju cast serious dent on the case of the prosecution with respect to samples sent for chemical analysis and thus put report of FSL under cloud of suspicion.
[4] Custody certificate as well as reply by way of affidavit of Shri Ramandeep Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.D. Dharamkot, Moga, dated 29.09.2024 has been produced in Court today. The same are taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is behind bars for more than 01 year 09 months and 06 days.
[5] Counsel el for the petitioner submits that there are 18 prosecution witnesses and till now examination-in-
examination -chief chief of 05 witnesses could be examined despite the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than 01 year 09 months and 6 days.
[6] Learned State counsel sel is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid facts.
[7] I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the records of the case. [8] Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Rabi Prakash Vs. The State of Odisha passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4169 of 2023 decided on 13.07.2023 wherein it has been held as under ::-
"4. As regard to the twin conditions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS 2 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2024 01:53:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129409 CRM-M-36284 36284-2024 -3- Act, learned counsel for the respondent - State has been duly heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd condition re:
formation n of opinion as to whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner is not guilty, the same may not be formed at this stage when he has already spent more than three and a half years in custody. The prolonged incarceration, generally mil militates itates against the most precious fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution and in such a situation, the conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created under Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS Act."
[9] Earlier to Rabi Prakash's case (supra) also Apex Court has consistently held that the prolonged incarceration has to be considered de hors bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme Court in order dated 22.08.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 2022 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State No.5530-2022 of Gujarat, had held as under:-
"We We are inclined to release the petitioner on bail only on the ground that he has spent about two years in custody and conclu conclusion sion of trial will take some time.
Consequently, without expressing any views on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the custody period of the petitioner, this special leave petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released d on bail subject to his furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Judge/ concerned Trial Court.
The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of inthe above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."
[10] Supreme Court in order dated 07.02.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 titled as "Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal" was pleased to grant concession of bail to the petitioner 3 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2024 01:53:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129409 CRM-M-36284 36284-2024 -4- (therein) in a case where the custody was of 1 year and 7 months approximately. The relevant portion of the said order dated 07.02.2020 is as under: -
"Leave granted.
This appeal arises out of the final Order dated 30.7.2010 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in CRM No.6787 of 2019.
The instant matter arises out of application preferred by the appellant under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking bail in connection with Criminal Case No.146 of 2018 registered with Taherpur Police Station for offence punishable under Sectio Section 21-C C of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
According to the prosecution, the appellant was found to be in possession of narcotic substance i.e. 46 bottles of phensydryl cough syrup containing codeine mixture above commercial quant quantity.
The appellant was arrested on 21.07.2018 and continues to be in custody. It appears that out of 10 witnesses cited to be examined in support of the case of prosecution four witnesses have already been examined in the trial.
Without expressing any op opinion inion on the merits or demerits of the rival submissions and considering the facts and circumstances on record, in our view, case for bail is made out. We therefore, allow this appeal and direct as under:
(a) Subject to furnishing bail bond in the sum of R Rs.2 s.2 lakhs with two like sureties to the satisfaction of the Judge, Special Court, NDPS Act, Nadia at Krishnagar, the appellant shall be released on bail.
(b) The Special Court may impose such other conditions as it deems appropriate to ensure the presence and participation of the appellant in the pending trial. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands allowed."
[11] In order dated 05.08.2022 in Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 titled as "Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India," the 4 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2024 01:53:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129409 CRM-M-36284 36284-2024 -5- Supreme Court was pleased to observe as under: -
"Leave granted.
This appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 25.01.2022 passed by the High Court Of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in MCRC No.117/2022. The appellant is in custody since 18.06.2020 in connection with crime registered as N.C.B. Crime No.02/2020 in respect of offences punishable under Sections 8, 20, 27 27-AA, AA, 28 read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The application tion seeking relief of bail having been rejected, the instant appeal has been filed.
We have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Panda, learned Senior Advocate in support of the appeal and Mr. Sanjay Jain,learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondent.
ering the facts and circumstances on record and the length Considering of custody undergone by the appellant, in our view the case for bail is made out.
We therefore, direct that:
(a) The appellant shall be produced before the Trial Court within five days from today.
(b) The Trial Court shall release the appellant on bail subject to such conditions as the Trial Court may deem appropriate to impose.
(c) The appellant shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
(d) Any infraction shall entail in withdrawal of the benef benefit it granted by this Order.
The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms." [12] In order dated 01.08.2022 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022 titled as "Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal" Supreme Court has observed as under: -
"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served
5 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2024 01:53:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129409 CRM-M-36284 36284-2024 -6- on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.
The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.
During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any crimi criminal nal antecedents.
Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The petitionerr is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of." [13] The petitioner is behind bars since 23.12.2022. By now, only 05 out of 18 cited witnesses could be examined. [14] Keeping in view the custody of petitioner i.e. more than 01 year 09 months and 06 days in the present case and that the trial has pproceeded roceeded at snail's pace, the present petition deserves to be allowed.. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court/Magistrate, concerned. However, the same same shall be subject to the following conditions:
conditions:-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis mis-use use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evi-
ev dence oral or documentary during the trial.
6 of 7 ::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2024 01:53:39 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:129409 CRM-M-36284 36284-2024 -7-
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any with the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the police authorities and shall not change his cell-phone phone number without permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.
[15] In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by the Trial Court, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
[16] Ordered accordingly.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
30.09.2024
'R. Sharma'
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
7 of 7
::: Downloaded on - 05-10-2024 01:53:39 :::