Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(P&H) 1478

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Sandeep Singh @ Sonu - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M-34488-2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 23-11-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Nikhil Ghai, Advocate and Mr. Siddhant Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

The main legal point established is that the length of custody and the expected duration of the trial can be significant factors in granting regular bail under the NDPS Act, while also considering the right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:
Bail - NDPS Act - 21, 25, 29, 307, 427, 270, 34 IPC - 8(c), 21(c), 29, 20, 27-AA, 28, 37 NDPS Act
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail in a case under the NDPS Act and IPC. The petitioner had been in custody for over 2 years and 6 months, and the trial was expected to take more time. The petitioner argued that further incarceration would violate their right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner had been in custody for a significant period, and considering the precedents, it deemed it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. The court imposed specific conditions to meet the object of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail considering the length of custody and the expected duration of the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on precedents where bail had been granted based on the length of custody and the expected duration of the trial under the NDPS Act. It also considered the right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and ordered the petitioner's release on regular bail, subject to specific conditions. The court clarified that the decision did not express an opinion on the merits of the case, and the trial would proceed independently.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.58 dated 01.05.2020 registered under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 307, 427, 270 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Special Task Force, District STF Wing, SAS Nagar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 01.05.2020 (more than 2 years and 6 months) and the investigation is complete and challan has been presented and there are 14 prosecution witnesses, out of which, none have been examined as yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is contended that no injury has been caused to any police officials and rather one gunshot injury has been suffered by the present petitioner on the left leg. It is further contended that further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of the right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CRM-3773-2019 in CRA-D-198-DB-2017 titled as Bhupender Singh Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau, order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State of Gujarat, order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 titled as " Chitta BiswasAlias Subhas Vs.The StateofWest Bengal", order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 titled as "Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India,", order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022 titled as "Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal", in support of his arguments that on the basis of long custody alone, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

4. On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted that the recovery effected from the petitioner and co-accused is of commercial quantity and thus, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh's case (Supra), had 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 above-said case was also a case under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the FIR had been registered under Sections 8(c), 21(c) and 29 of the said Act. The case of the prosecution therein was that the recovery from the said petitioner (therein) was of commercial quantity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the concession of bail was granted to the petitioner (therein) only on the ground that he had spent about two years in custody and the conclusion of trial will take some time.

8. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas's case (Supra) 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 app