SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(P&H) 1819

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Mahabir Singh Sindhu , J.
Naseeb Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab And Another - Respondent
CRM-M No. 15986 of 2020 (O&M)
Decided On : 14-10-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. K.P.S.Virk, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. H.S.Multani, AAG, Punjab for respondent No.1/State., Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the Respondent No.2-CBI

The main legal point established in the judgment is that for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of drugs under the NDPS Act, the accused must satisfy the twin-test stipulated under Section 37, which requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Headnote:

Bail - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Section 21, 25, 29 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which lays down the conditions for granting bail to a person accused of an offence involving commercial quantity. The court emphasized that the accused must satisfy the twin-test stipulated under Section 37, which requires the court to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a bail petition under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail pending trial in a case involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner was involved in smuggling heroin and money laundering.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin-test stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which is a non-obstante clause to Cr.P.C., for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of drugs. The court emphasized that the accused must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted bail pending trial in a case involving commercial quantity of drugs under the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which requires the satisfaction of the twin-test for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of drugs. The court emphasized that the accused must demonstrate reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of the alleged offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's bail petition, stating that the petitioner failed to satisfy the twin-test stipulated under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of drugs.

JUDGMENT

Mahabir Singh Sindhu, J. - Second petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'Cr.P.C.') for grant of bail pending trial to the petitioner in FIR No.18 dated 09.11.2016, under Sections 21, 25, 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), registered at Police Station SSOC Amritsar, District Amritsar.

2. As per prosecution case, 500 grams of Heroin as well as Indian Currency Notes (alleged drug money), amounting to Rs. 39,73,000/- were recovered from co-accused, namely, Abhishek Chetal on the basis of a secret information and he disclosed about the names of petitioner as well as other co-accused.

3. Contends that petitioner is in custody since 23.12.2016 and has been falsely implicated in the present case. Also contends that main accused Abhishek Chetal, from whom the alleged contraband was recovered, filed petition bearing CRM-M No.44010 of 2016 for transfer of investigation to CBI, which stands allowed vide order dated 30.01.2019 (P-l) by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Consequently, the proceedings before learned trial Court have been stayed and case is transferred to the CBI. Further contends that main accused Abhishek Chetal has also been granted the concession of regular bail by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.09.2018 (P-2). Again contends that petitioner is neither named in the secret information; nor any recovery of contraband or money was effected from him and there is no material to connect him with the alleged recovery or to establish any relation with main accused Abhishek Chetal. Also contends that two other co-accused, namely, Gurbhej Singh @ Bheja s/o Atma Singh and Gurbhej Singh @ Bheja s/o Gurdeep Singh have also been granted the concession of regular bail by the coordinate Benches of this Court, vide orders dated 19.05.2017 & 21.08.2017 (P-3 colly.) Further contends that although there were two other criminal cases pending against the petitioner, but he is on bail in those cases. Also contends that above two cases have been planted upon the petitioner as he was behind bars when the same were registered. It is also the contention that complainant and Investigating Officer of the case is one and the same Officer, namely, S.I. Sukhbir Singh, thus, prosecution case is vitiated. Lastly contends that due to Covid-19 situation, there is no progress in the trial, thus, petitioner be released on bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel (respondent No.l), on instructions, has opposed the bail by submitting that initially, the case was investigated by the State Police Operation Cell (SSOC), Amritsar and on completion of investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had been submitted on 24.04.2017 before the Court of competent jurisdiction against seven accused, including the petitioner and now the matter is being investigated by the CBI after its transfer. Also contends that petitioner is operating the criminal activities from Jail as he has been nominated as an accused in three NDPS cases after his arrest in this case.

5. Learned Counsel for respondent No.2/CBI vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner by submitting that he along with his brother-Kuldeep Singh are in custody and petitioner is involved in three more cases under the NDPS Act. Also submits that name of the petitioner surfaced on the basis of disclosure made by co-accused Abhishek Chetal and during investigation, it is gathered that petitioner, his brother-Kuldeep Singh and other co-accused used to indulge in smuggling of Heroin from the border areas and supplied the same to the end users. Again submitted that petitioner and his brother were in constant touch with co-accused Abhishek Chetal, who used to send the drug money to Pakistan. Further submitted that in August, 2016, petitioner along with his brother delivered Rs. 22 Lakh and Rs. 10 Lakh to said Abhishek Chetal in the area of Jandiala Maruti Agency, Amritsar and

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

          Please visit our Training & Support
          Center or Contact Us for assistance

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top