Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 412

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Himanshu Chopra – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-39909-2023 (O&M)
Decided On : 05-10-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kapil Khanna, Advocate for the Appellant; Ms. Jasleen Kaur Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of custody period, completion of investigation, and the likelihood of trial conclusion, along with the application of the right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, in granting regular bail under the NDPS Act.

Headnote:
Regular Bail - NDPS Act - Section 22, Section 61 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 22 and Section 61 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) and their application in granting regular bail to the petitioner. The court also referred to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts, highlighting the consideration of custody period, completion of investigation, and the likelihood of trial conclusion in granting bail under the NDPS Act.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a petition for grant of regular bail under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in a case registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner had been in custody since 07.02.2022, and the trial was likely to take time to conclude. The petitioner sought bail based on the violation of his right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's custody, completion of investigation, and the likelihood of trial conclusion were significant factors in granting regular bail. The court also considered the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the High Courts in similar cases, emphasizing the importance of custody period and the right to a speedy trial in granting bail under the NDPS Act.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's entitlement to regular bail under the NDPS Act, considering the custody period, completion of investigation, and the likelihood of trial conclusion, as well as the violation of the petitioner's right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the NDPS Act, the consideration of custody period, completion of investigation, and the likelihood of trial conclusion, as well as the application of the right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India in granting regular bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and directed the release of the petitioner on regular bail, subject to specific conditions, emphasizing that the observations made were only for the purpose of adjudicating the bail petition and not a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - This is the second petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.09 dated 07.02.2022, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (Section 61 of the NDPS Act has been added later on), at Police Station Banur, District Patiala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 07.02.2022 and the investigation is complete and challan has been presented and there are 11 prosecution witnesses, out of which, only 4 witnesses have been examined as yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and the last bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage on 07.09.2022 and even thereafter, the trial has not made any progress, thus, entitling the petitioner to file the present bail petition and keeping in view the custody of the petitioner, he deserves the concession of regular bail, as any further incarceration would be violative of the right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, solely on the basis of the custody, the concession of bail has been granted. Reliance has also been placed upon an order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CRM-3773-2019 in CRA-D-198-DB-2017 in case titled as "Bhupender Singh Vs. Narcotic Control Bureau".

3. 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 falls within the category of commercial quantity and thus, bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in other cases, thus, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted that the petitioner is on bail in the said cases and has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another', reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-

'As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the paper-book.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 04.05.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).3221/2023 in case titled as Hasanujjamanandothers Vs.The State of WestBengal, had observed as under:-

'xxx xxx xxx xxx.

They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and four months.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

4. The investigation is complete; chargesheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is, thus, substantial compliance of Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

6. Additionally, it is clarified that in