Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirmal Singh @ Bugga vs State Of Punjab on 6 July, 2023
Author: Harnaresh Singh Gill
Bench: Harnaresh Singh Gill
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084953
2023:PHHC:084953
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
225
CRM-M-3998-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 06.07.2023
NIRMAL SINGH @ BUGGA
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Harpreet Singh Maan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurdarshan Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.
****
HARNARESH SINGH GILL, J.(Oral)
Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.88 dated 17.09.2022, registered under Sections 15, 25, 61 and 85 of the NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Morinda, District Roopnagar.
Short reply by way of an affidavit dated 16.05.2023 of the Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division, Morinda, District Rupnagar, filed on behalf of the respondent-State, in the Court, is taken on record. Copy whereof has been supplied to the learned counsel opposite.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case; that the alleged recovery of 54 kg poppy husk recovered from the petitioner is marginally above the commercial quantity and that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.09.2022. He further submits that the petitioner is facing medical problems also, as would decipher from the medical report dated 14.12.2022 attached with the reply filed by the respondent-State.
1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 04:40:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084953 225 CRM-M-3998-2023 (O&M) -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no other case, registered and/or pending against the petitioner, at least of the similar nature and that out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far.
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. He, however, submits that the recovery effected from the petitioner is a commercial quantity and Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bars grant of bail to the persons involved in commercial quantity cases. He further submits that the material witnesses are yet to be examined and thus, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Recovery effected from the petitioner is marginally above the commercial quantity. The petitioner has been in custody since 17.09.2022. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no other case registered and/or pending against the petitioner, at least of a similar nature.
As per the medical status report dated 14.12.2022 of the Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, PGIMER, Chandigarh and MRI Report of the Department of Radiodiagnosis and Imaging, PGIMER, Chandigarh (Annexure R-1), which is duly signed by the Senior Resident, Junior Resident and Consultant, the petitioner is suffering from the following diseases:-
2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 04:40:02 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084953 225 CRM-M-3998-2023 (O&M) -3-
(i)"Mild lumbar spondylosis.
(ii)Central disc protrusion on background of diffuse disc bulge and bilateral ligamentum flavum at L4- L5 level causing severe spinal canal stenosis, compression of thecal sac and bilateral traversing mots, bilateral lateral recess narrowing, bilateral neural foraminal narrowing without significant existing nerve root compression
(iii) Diffuse disc bulge and mild bilateral ligamentum flavum hypertrophy at L3-L4 level causing spinal canal stehosis indentation/mild compression of thecal sac, bilateral traversing roots, bilateral al neural; foraminal narrowing without significant get compression."
Keeping in view the above report and further, prosecution evidence is yet to commence, in such circumstances, the 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.
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.
06.07.2023 (HARNARESH SINGH GILL)
Aman Jain JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:084953
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 07-07-2023 04:40:02 :::