Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUVIR SEHGAL, J.
Balkar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M No. 29102 of 2023
Decided On : 13-07-2023
For the Petitioner:Mr. Bikramjit Singh Randhawa, Advocate for Mr. Tarun Sharma.
For the Respondent: Mr. Arun Luthra, DAG, Punjab.
The court considered the non-commercial quantity of contraband, the clean antecedents of the petitioner, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial in granting post-arrest bail.
Headnote:
NDPS Act - Post-arrest Bail - The court granted post-arrest bail to the petitioner based on the non-commercial quantity of contraband recovered, clean antecedents of the petitioner, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in a case involving the recovery of 1 kg of opium from the petitioner's car.
Finding of the Court:
The court granted the petitioner's request for bail, considering the non-commercial quantity of contraband, the clean antecedents of the petitioner, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial.
Issues: The issues involved the alleged non-compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act during the search and seizure, the categorization of the contraband as non-commercial quantity, and the petitioner's eligibility for bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the non-commercial quantity of contraband, the clean antecedents of the petitioner, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial, as well as the absence of the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Area Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.
JUDGMENT :
Suvir Sehgal, J.
1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking grant of post-arrest bail in:-
| FIR No. | Dated | Police Station | Sections |
| 0052 | 04.03.2023 | Special Task Force, District STF Wing (Mohali) | 18 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “the NDPS Act”) |
2. Version of the prosecution is that FIR, Annexure P-1, has been registered when on the basis of a secret information, a car was intercepted and recovery of 1 kg opium was effected. Balkar Singh, present petitioner, who was driving the car, was apprehended at the spot.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that at the time of alleged search and seizure, mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act have not been followed. It is his categoric assertion that no independent witness was joined, even though recovery is alleged to have been effected from a public place. Still further, he submits that the alleged recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of non-commercial quantity and the petitioner, who has a clean past and is languishing behind bars, deserves to be released on bail.
4. Per contra, State counsel, upon instructions received from SI, Gurnek Singh, has opposed the petition. On the basis of Custody Certificate dated 07.06.2023, filed by him, he is not in a position to dispute the clean antecedents of the petitioner. As per his instructions, challan has been presented and charge has been framed on 06.07.2023.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties, but without commenting upon the allegations levelled in the FIR, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer made in the petition. Petitioner is in custody for the last more than four months, contraband recovered from him falls within the ambit of non-commercial quantity, charge has been framed and the trial is likely to take time to conclude. Furthermore, bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not attracted in the case of the petitioner.
6. Petition is allowed.
7. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Area Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.
8. It is clarified that nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
