Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kirandeep Singh Alias Karan vs State Of Punjab on 24 January, 2025
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010884
CRM-M-2770-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
237
CRM-M-2770-2025
Date of decision : 24.01.2025
Kirandeep Singh @ Karan ...... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Prateek Pandit, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Malkiat Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS,
2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR
No.52 dated 15.06.2023, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 22(c) and 29 of NDPS Act at Police Station Nurmehal, District
Jalandhar (Rural).
2. As per the contents of the FIR, it has been alleged as
under:-
“SHO P.S. Nurmehal Sat Sri Akal. Today I S1
alongwith ASI Surjit Singh No. 28/Jal, ASI Jugraj Singh No.
758, S/CT Harpreet Singh No. 1221, СТ Balwinder Singh No.
1391 on government vehicle having No. PB-08-DS-0864
Bolero Camper whose driver was ASI Dharmender Singh No.
298 were on nakabandi at bridge Canal Bhandal Boota Link
Road, when one motorcycle splendor having No. PB-08-EX-
2985 upon which three persons were riding was seen coming.
I SI signaled them to stop upon which the driver of the
motorcycle tried to speed away his motorcycle towards his left
side on the katcha track towards Kunal rest house. I SI1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:58:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010884CRM-M-2770-2025 2
alongwith fellow officials chased and apprehended them near
Kunal Rest House. The three persons on the motorcycle were
made to the get of the motorcycle and the driver of the
motorcycle disclosed his name as Sukhpreet Singh @ Sukha
son of Pavittar Singh R/o village Uppal Khalsa P.S. Nurmahal
District Jalandhar. The person sitting in the middle disclosed
his name as Salwinder Singh @ Gullu son of Jaspal R/o Kotla
Janga P.S. Sadar Nakodar District Jalandhar and he was
holding a heavy bag. The third young person disclosed his
name as Kirandeep Singh @ Karan son of Ram Lubhaya R/o
Kotla Janga P.S. Sadar Nakodar. Then in routine in order to
check the bag held by Salwinder Singh @ Gullu in his hands
the zip of the bag was opened and it was found to contain two
transparent polythene bags having light pink & black coloured
capsules without wrapping were seen and the front number
plate of motorcycle PB-08- EX-2985 was also recovered from
the bag. Several passersby were asked to join the police party
but they expressed their difficulty. Regarding the capsules
seen in the bag these three persons were asked about any
permit issued by Health Department, govt. of Punjab or any
other public authority but they could not produce the same.
They stated that these are intoxicant capsules. Then the
polythene bags containing intoxicant capsules were taken out
from the bag and a cloth was spread on the ground and the
intoxicant capsules were put on the same in two lots and the
same were counted and found to 1000 capsules each. The
same were again put back into the same transparent polythene
bags and the mouths of the bags were closed and the same
upon being weighed alongwith the bag the one bag was found
to be 433.70 grams and it was marked as No. 1 and the second
bag upon being weighed was found to be 457.70 grams which
was marked as No. 2. Both the bags were put into separate
plastic containers and cloth parcels was prepared separately
and sealed by me with my seal as “MS” and both the said
parcels, bag alongwith number plate PB-08-EX-2985,
motorcycle splendor number PB-08-EX-2985 were taken into
police possession vide separate recovery memo. Form 29M
was filed at the spot. Seal after use was handed over to ASI
Surjit Singh No. 28/Jal. Accused Sukhpreet Singh @ Sukha,
Salwinder Singh @ Gullu and Kirandeep Singh @ Karan by2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:58:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010884CRM-M-2770-2025 3
keeping in their possession 2000 intoxicant capsules has
committed offence U/s 22 (c), 61, 85 of NDPS Act.
Accordingly Ruka is being sent through CT Balwinder Singh
No. 1391 to P.S. for registration of case. Number of the case
be informed after registering the same. Control room be
informed. Special reports be issued and be sent to Ilaqa
Magistrate and senior officers. I SI alongwith fellow officials
am busy with investigation at the spot. Today in the area of
Bridge Canal Bhandal Boota at 7:30 PM. Sd/- Manjit
Singh.xxx”
3. Counsel for the petitioner argues that the recovery of the
contraband was made from bag held by Salwinder Singh @ Gullu-the
co-accused. Even if the allegation with respect to the petitioner riding
motor cycle alongwith Salwinder Singh @ Gullu from whose bag,
contraband was recovered is taken to be gospel truth, it cannot be said
that the recovery was made from the conscious possession of the
petitioner.
4. Further submits that the petitioner is behind bars for more
than 01 year, 07 months and 05 days. Trial is proceeding at its snail’s
pace. Charges were framed on 14.12.2023 and by now only two
witnesses could be examined in toto, whereas examination-in-chief of
only two witnesses has been recorded till date. There are in total 11
prosecution witnesses.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon order passed
by 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 Act, learned counsel for the respondent – State has been duly
heard. Thus, the 1st condition stands complied with. So far as the 2nd3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:58:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010884CRM-M-2770-2025 4
condition re: formation 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
militates 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.”
6. Earlier to Rabi Prakash‘s case supra also Apex Court has
consistently held that the prolonged incarceration has to be considered
dehors bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The Supreme
Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 dated
22.08.2022 titled as “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State
of Gujarat, held as under:-
“We are inclined to release the petitioner on bail only on the
ground that he has spent about two years in custody and conclusion
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 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 in the
above terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.”
7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal
No.245/2020 dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas
Vs. The State of West Bengal” was pleased to grant concession of bail
to the petitioner (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
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:58:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010884CRM-M-2770-2025 5
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 Section
21-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 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 opinion 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 Rs.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.”
8. The Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022
dated 05.08.2022 titled as “Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs.
Union of India,” observed 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 custody5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:58:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010884CRM-M-2770-2025 6
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-AA, 28 read with 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985.
The application 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.
Considering the facts and circumstances on record and the
length 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 benefit granted by
this Order.
The appeal is allowed in aforesaid terms.”
9. The Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)
No.5769/2022 dated 01.08.2022 titled as “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan
Vs. The State of West Bengal” 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 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
criminal antecedents.
Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:58:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010884CRM-M-2770-2025 7
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 petitioner 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.”
10. Learned State counsel is not in a position to dispute the
aforementioned factual assertions based on record.
11. Without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in
view the incarceration suffered by the petitioner, the present petition is
allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his
furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial
Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned. However, in addition to conditions
that may be imposed by the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, the
petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions :-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence oral or
documentary during the trial.
(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 number without
permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the
trial.
12. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and
those which may be imposed by the Trial Court, the prosecution shall
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 25-01-2025 19:58:39 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:010884
CRM-M-2770-2025 8
be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
13. Ordered accordingly.
14. Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be
construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
24.01.2025
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on - 25-01-2025 19:58:39 :::
[ad_1]
Source link