Punjab-Haryana High Court
Grupreet Singh @ Billu vs State Of Punjab on 26 July, 2023
Author: Arun Monga
Bench: Arun Monga
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:094753
2023:PHHC:094753
CRM-M-19862-2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
103/207 CRM-6054-2023 IN/AND
CRM-M-19862-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.07.2023
Gurpreet Singh @ Billu
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Mr. Arjun Veer Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG Punjab.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (Oral)
CRM-6054-2023 Application is allowed as prayed for. Copy of report dated 08.10.2021 under Section 42 of the NDPS Act and challan dated 11.01.2022 under Section 173 Cr.P.C. are taken on record as Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively, subject to all just exceptions.
CRM-M-19862-2022 Petitioner seeks bail in a case bearing FIR No.181 dated 08.10.2021 (Annexure P-1), registered under Sections 21& 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station STF, Phase-4, Mohali, District SAS Nagar.
2. Per FIR, on 08.10.2021, police party headed by SI Makhan Ram, at around 05:15 p.m, on receipt of a tip-off, erected a barricade and petitioner along with his co-accused Harjeet Singh @ Happy were apprehended. On checking, 850 gramsof heroin was recovered from them, which was taken into police possession after adopting due procedure. They were taken in custody.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the alleged contraband was planted on petitioner and was not recovered from his conscious 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-07-2023 03:01:16 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:094753 2023:PHHC:094753 CRM-M-19862-2022 possession. Per prosecution version, the same was though allegedlyfound in the boot of scooter which was being driven by him. Said recovery, in any case, has been made in violation of the mandatory provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. He further states that petitioner has been on interim bail since 27.04.2023to look after his father who has recently undergone heart surgery. He has never misused the concession. He further submits challan has already been presented before the competent Court. He further submits that there are total 19 witnessesand out of them, only 4 have been examined and 2 have been given up. Trial is unlikely to conclude in near future.
3.1 He strenuously argues that rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act do not apply in the instant case as the contraband was not recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He further argues that in view of the violation of the statutory provision of Section 42 of the NDPS Act, trial is likely to result in acquittal of petitioner.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel, assisted by ASI Munish, opposes the bail petition. She submits that petitioner has committed serious offence. The quantity of contraband recovered falls under the commercial quantity per provision of the NDPS Act.She further submits that in view of the heavy quantity of contraband recovered from the petitioner, he is not entitled to concession of bail.
5. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the case file.
6. Challan is stated to have been filed and even charges have already been framed. Since the trial has commenced, petitioner is thus not required for custodial interrogation.Perusal of the file shows that out of 19 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, 4 have already been examined and 2 have been given up. Allegations against petitioner are amatter of trial at this stage.Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom until his guilt or innocence is 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-07-2023 03:01:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:094753 2023:PHHC:094753 CRM-M-19862-2022 determined. Conclusion of trial is still likely to take long timeas it is proceeding at a snail pace, whereas petitioner has remained in jail for more than one and a half year from 08.10.2021 till 27.04.2023.Petitioner is currently on interim bail and he has not misused the privilege.
6.1. There appears to be unfounded suspicion on the part of prosecutionthat if petitioneris let out, he may either tamper with evidence and/ or influence witnesses. There is no documentary evidence and it is more in the nature of FSL report qua contraband, already filed in the trial Court to which accused has no access. There is no probability of tampering with evidence as the same has already been seized by the investigating agency.As regards witnesses, they are all official and therefore, they are unlikely to be influenced, even if there is any such apprehension by the prosecution.
6.2. Petitioner is stated to be 28-year old and has an added responsibility of looking after his ailing father. Being a family man and having clean antecedents, it is unlikely that he is flight risk or will flee from the trialproceedings. Offence allegedly committed by petitioner is of non-violent nature and inthat sense his release on bail is not a threat to the society at large by committing anyviolent crime.At this stage, there appears to be a reasonable groundthat petitioner may not be guilty of the alleged offence and he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.
7. Considering the overall scenario and without commenting on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody.
8. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in case not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, where his case is being tried and in case he/she is not available, before learned Duty Magistrate, as the case may be.
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 28-07-2023 03:01:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:094753 2023:PHHC:094753 CRM-M-19862-2022
9. In case, petitioner is found to be involved or gets involved in any offence while on bail, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail in the instant case.
10. It is made clear that any observations and/or submissions noted hereinabove shall not have any effect on merits of the case as the same are for the limited purpose of hearing the instant bail petition alone and learned Trial Court shall proceed without being influenced with this order.
11. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
July 26, 2023
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:094753
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 28-07-2023 03:01:17 :::