Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 903
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J.
Hardeep Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-39259-2019
Decided On : 04-02-2020
Mr. Gurinder Singh Goraya, Advocate for the Appellant; Ms. Rashmi Attri, AAG, Punjab. for the Respondent
The validity of a joint offer under Section 50 of NDPS Act and the eligibility for bail in cases involving recovery of commercial quantity of contraband.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Bail Application - Validity of Joint Offer under Section 50 NDPS Act
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner seeks bail in a case involving the recovery of 'Herion' from his possession during a police check. The prosecution claims that a joint offer under Section 50 of NDPS Act was extended to the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had been in detention for over a year and no witnesses had been examined. Considering the delay in trial and the nature of the case, the court granted bail to the petitioner.
Issues: Validity of joint offer under Section 50 of NDPS Act, eligibility for bail in a case involving recovery of commercial quantity of contraband
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the validity of the joint offer and the prolonged detention of the petitioner without examination of witnesses as grounds for granting bail.
Final Decision: The petition for bail was accepted, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail.
JUDGMENT
Gurvinder Singh Gill. J. (Oral) - The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case registered vide FIR No.243 dated 5.10.2018 under Section 21 NDPS registered at Police Station Samrala District Ludhiana.
2. The case of the prosecution is that during the course of checking of suspicious elements, the police signalled a car to stop in which three persons were sitting namely the petitioner-Hardeep Singh, Sapinder Singh and Jagtar Singh @ Jagga. Since it was suspected that the said persons were carrying some contraband an offer under Section 50 of NDPS Act was extended to them and thereafter upon search of the petitioner, 400 grams of 'Herion' was recovered from the pocket of the trousers worn by petitioner, while 'Herion' weighing 300 grams each was recovered from other two persons.
3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and that in any case since Section 50 of NDPS Act has not been complied with in letter and spirit inasmuch as joint offer was extended and a joint consent memo was prepared, the entire recovery stands vitiated.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since it is a case of recovery of commercial quantity, no case for grant of bail is made out.
5. Learned State counsel has however informed that it is indeed a case where a joint offer in terms of Section 50 of NDPS Act was extended to accused. It has further been informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since last 1 year and 4 months and that till date not even a single PW has been examined.
6. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. It will certainly be debatable as to whether a joint offer as extended in the present case is valid or not. In any case, since the petitioner has already been behind bars since the last 1 year and 4 months and conclusion of trial, in its normal course, is likely to take some time as not even a single PW is examined, further detention of the petitioner is not justified.
7. The petition, as such, is accepted and it is ordered that petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
