Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chunni Ram Alias Sandeep vs State Of Haryana on 22 November, 2022
Author: Arvind Singh Sangwan
Bench: Arvind Singh Sangwan
CRM-M No.9317 of 2022 (O&M)
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.9317 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided on: 22.11.2022
Chunni Ram @ Sandeep
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present : Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Grewal, DAG, Haryana.
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (Oral)
Prayer in this 2nd petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short 'Cr.P.C.') in FIR No.40 dated 22.02.2021 registered under Sections 22(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (in short 'the NDPS Act') at Police Station Nathu Sarai Chopta District Sirsa.
The earlier one i.e. CRM-M No.12338 of 2021, was filed for grant of interim bail to the petitioner and was dismissed as withdrawn on 18.01.2022.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the new ground for filing this 2 nd petition is that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 02 months and 07 days and no PW has been examined so far and it will take some time in conclusion of the trial.
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that after availing the interim bail, the petitioner has surrendered back and in the intervening period, he has not misused the concession of bail.
1 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2022 08:12:21 ::: CRM-M No.9317 of 2022 (O&M) 2 Counsel for the petitioner has argued that in another FIR, which was registered on the same day, on the basis of the disclosure statement, the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 28.09.2022 passed in CRM-M No.12891 of 2022.
Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that as per the allegations in the FIR, the petitioner was seen coming on a motorcycle and he was apprehended on the basis of suspicion that he is carrying a bag of intoxicant tablets on the handle of the motorcycle.
Thereafter, the petitioner was searched before a Gazetted Officer and the recovery of 590 strips i.e. total 5900 ALPRAZOLAM tablets were recovered. It is also submitted that though, there are material discrepancies in the investigation, which will be taken up as a defence during the course of trial, however, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody, for the last about 01 year and 02 months and till date, the trial has not started as no PW has been examined, the petitioner be granted the concession of bail.
Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in CRM-M No.24006 of 2022, titled as "Sukhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab", wherein the following observation has been made:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioner has also highlighted the fact that in various cases where recovery of commercial quantity has been effected, the Supreme Court as well as this Court have granted bail/suspension of sentence. Some of the said judgments are being discussed hereinafter. In Criminal Appeal No.965 of 2021 titled as Dheeren Kumar Jaina vs. Union of India, the 2 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2022 08:12:22 ::: CRM-M No.9317 of 2022 (O&M) 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case where allegation in the chargesheet was with respect to 120 kg of contraband i.e. "ganja", thus, being of commercial quantity, was pleased to grant bail after setting aside the order of the High Court where the said application for grant of regular bail had been rejected.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a detailed judgment titled as Ankush Kumar @ Sonu vs. State of Punjab reported as 2018 (4) RCR (Criminal) 84, had considered the provision of Section 37 of the Act of 1985 in extenso and had granted bail in a case which involved commercial quantity. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under: -
" xxx--xxx--xxx But, so far as second part of Section 37 (1) (b) (ii), i.e. regarding the satisfaction of the Court based on reasons to believe that the accused would not commit 'any offence' after coming out of the custody, is concerned, this Court finds that this is the requirement which is being insisted by the State, despite the same being irrational and being incomprehensible from any material on record. As held above, this Court cannot go into the future mental state of the mind of the petitioner as to what he would be, likely, doing after getting released on bail. Therefore, if this Court cannot record a reasonable satisfaction that the petitioner is not likely to commit 'any offence' or 'offence under NDPS Act' after being released on bail, then this court, also, does not have any reasonable ground to be satisfied that the petitioner is likely to commit any offence after he is released on bail. Hence, this satisfaction of the Court in this regard is neutral qua future possible conduct of the petitioner."
The Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.42609 of 2018 filed against the aforesaid judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Further, vide order dated 25.02.2021 in CRM-M-
3 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2022 08:12:22 ::: CRM-M No.9317 of 2022 (O&M) 4 20177- 2020, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court granted regular bail to an accused who was involved in a case wherein recovery was of 3.8 kgs of "charas" (commercial quantity) after being in custody for 1 year and 7 months. The said order was upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 24.08.2021 in a Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5852/2021 titled as "Narcotic Control Bureau vs. Vipan Sood and another".
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide order dated 12.10.2020 passed in Criminal Appeal No.668 of 2020 titled as "Amit Singh @ Moni vs. Himachal Pradesh" was pleased to grant regular bail in a case involving 3 kg and 800 grams of "charas" primarily on the ground of substantial custody and also, the fact that the trial would likely take time to conclude.
In Criminal Appeal No.827 of 2021 titled as "Mukarram Hussain vs. State of Rajasthan and another", the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 16.8.2021 was also pleased to grant bail wherein the quantity of the contraband was commercial in nature.
A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M 10343 of 2021 titled as Ajay Kumar @ Nannu vs. State of Punjab and other connected matters, vide Order dated 31.03.2021, after taking into consideration the stipulations of Section 37 of the Act of 1985, was pleased to grant regular bail in a case involving commercial quantity and a condition was imposed on the petitioner therein while granting the said bail and the said condition was incorporated in para 21 of the said judgment, which reads as under:
"21. However, the petitioners are granted regular bail subject to the condition that they shall not commit any offence under the NDPS Act after their release on bail and in case of commission of any such offence by them after their release on bail, 4 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2022 08:12:22 ::: CRM-M No.9317 of 2022 (O&M) 5 their bail in the present case shall also be liable to be cancelled on application to be filed by the prosecution in this regard."
Further, a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 31.08.2021 passed in CRM-8262-2021 in CRA-S-3721-SB of 2015 titled as, Harpal Singh v. National Investigating Agency and another, granted suspension of sentence in a case where the recovery was of commercial quantity. In the abovementioned order, the Division Bench had taken into consideration the right vested with an accused person/convict under Article 21 of the Constitution of India with regard to speedy trial. Further, the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Lokesh Chadha; reported as (2021) 5 SCC 724 was also taken into account and the provisions of Section 37 of the Act of 1985 were considered and the sentence of the applicant-appellant therein was suspended after primarily considering the period of custody of the applicant-appellant therein and also the fact that the appeal was not likely to be heard in near future. Reference in the order was also made to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Daler Singh v. State of Punjab; 2007 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 316 and the view taken in Daler Singh's case (supra) was reiterated and followed. In the above said judgment, it was also noticed that the grounds for regular bail stand on a better footing than that of suspension of sentence, which is after conviction."
Counsel for the State has argued that the reply on behalf of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sirsa, is already on record in which the factum of grant of bail in another case is not disputed. It is also not disputed that the petitioner was nominated in another case on the same day in Police Station Sadar Fatehabad, on the basis of the 5 of 6 ::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2022 08:12:22 ::: CRM-M No.9317 of 2022 (O&M) 6 disclosure statement of the co-accused, who were arrested in the said case.
Without commenting anything on merits of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 02 months and 07 days; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required; no PW has been examined, so far and the conclusion of the trial will take some time and further in view of Sukhwinder Singh's case (supra), this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate.
However, it will be open for the prosecution to apply for cancellation of bail of the petitioner, in case he is found involved in any other case or misusing the concession of bail, in any manner.
(ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN)
JUDGE
22.11.2022
yakub
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
::: Downloaded on - 23-11-2022 08:12:22 :::