Back
2021 Supreme(P&H) 254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sudip Ahluwalia, J.
Rajandeep Singh @ Ghughi - Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Main) No. 36504 of 2020
Decided On : 28-01-2021
Vipul Jindal, Advocate, Vishal Khatri, Advocate, B.S. Sewak, Advocate
The main legal point established is that serious lapses in the case, including the recovery process and prolonged detention without trial commencement, can influence the court's decision to grant bail.
Headnote:
N.D.P.S. Act - Regular Bail - Section 21/25/29 - [21/25/29] - The court discussed the existence of the FIR number on the Recovery Memo and its implications, citing relevant case laws. It also highlighted the failure to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act and the petitioner's prolonged detention as reasons for granting bail.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for regular bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in a case involving the recovery of Heroin above the commercial quantity. The petitioner claimed to be falsely implicated and had already been in detention for over a year.
Finding of the Court:
The court found serious lapses in the case, including the questionable recovery process and the petitioner's prolonged detention without trial commencement. As a result, the court granted bail to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the recovery process, compliance with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the petitioner's prolonged detention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the existence of the FIR number on the Recovery Memo, failure to comply with Section 50 of the NDPS Act, and the petitioner's prolonged detention without trial commencement.
Final Decision: The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/ Duty Magistrate, concerned.
JUDGMENT
Sudip Ahluwalia, J. - This is a petition for regular bail filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. on behalf of the petitioner in case FIR No. 94 dated 16.11.2019, under Section 21/25/29 of the N.D.P.S. Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Verowal, District Tarn Taran.
2. The petitioner was allegedly apprehended by the CIA Staff, Tarn Taran on the aforesaid date of the FIR and the contraband in the form of 1Kg. 55 grams of Heroin was allegedly recovered from him which happens to be above the commercial quantity.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that his client has been falsely implicated in the case and the recovery allegedly effected from him is a planted one, and that there is no justification, in any case, to keep him in further detention since he has already remained confined in prison for more than 01 year and 02 months by now.
4. The prayer for bail has been opposed by the State, on whose behalf a reply was filed on 08.01.2021, in which it has been reiterated that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail since the recovery effected from him was above the commercial quantity, and that there is no merit in the other submissions raised on his behalf.
5. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has, at the very outset, drawn attention of the Court to the fact that the number of the concerned FIR (94) is seen to be already mentioned in the Recovery Memo ostensibly prepared at the spot from where the petitioner was apprehended, which was a good 15 kilometers away from the concerned Police Station Verowal where the FIR was drawn up only after ruqqa from the spot was sent through HC Avtar Singh 50, who was a member of the Patrolling Party headed by SI Paramjit Singh, which had allegedly intercepted the white coloured Swift Dezire car from which the petitioner allegedly tried to flee away along with a black coloured envelop/ bag on seeing the Police Party. But the said envelope /Carry bag fell down from his hand, after which he was apprehended by the Police Party and on query pertaining to the plastic envelope/ bag, he nervously told that it contains Heroin for being supplied to his customers at village Khadur Saheb, Verowal and other villages, after which, on instruction of the complainant, the petitioner lifted the said bag/ envelope with his own hands, and presented the same before the complainant SI Paramjit Singh. In this backdrop, the submission made by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ram Chander Sharma @ Pandit v. State (NCT Delhi) Criminal Appeal No. 1809 of 2009, the existence of the FIR on the recovery memo when the FIR was not itself drawn up would point to the case against the petitioner being a fabricated one. Reliance has thereafter been placed upon an earlier decision of this Court in Ajay Malik v. State of U.T. Chandigarh, (2009) 3 RCR(Cri) 649 (P&H) which was thereafter followed by the Division Bench in the decision of Didar Singh @ Dara v. State of Punjab, (2010) 3 RCR(Cri) 337 (P&H) (DB). Various Benches of this Court have subsequently granted bail to such accused persons in view of these decisions wherever number of the FIR was seen to have been noted down in the documents purported prepared before registration of the FIR itself.
[(i) CRM-M-38153-2019 titled Satish Kumar v. State of Punjab;
(ii) CRM-M-42370-2019 titled Tarsem Lal v. State of Punjab;
(iii) CRM-M-44921-2019 titled Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab;
(iv) CRM-M-32615-2018 titled Rinku Singh v. State of Punjab;
(v) CRM-M-61999-2018 titled Jatinder Vashisht v. State of Punjab;
(vi) CRM-M-34433-2019 titled Harvinder Singh @ Shammi v. State of Punjab.]
Similarly in :-
(vii) CRM-20778-2018 in CRA-S-2212-SB-2016 titled Kashmir Singh @ Kokki v. State of Punjab; and
(viii) CRM-19587-2019 in CRA-S-2884-SB-2016 titled Charno v. State of Punjab, the benefit of suspension of sentence even in favour of the convicts was granted by this Court for the same reason, i.e. existence of the
