Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Iqbal Singh @ Bali – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 23787 of 2023
Decided On : 16-05-2023
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. bail application based on custody and charges pending. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments for and against bail application. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on custody duration and charges. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. petition allowed; bail granted to petitioner. (Para 7) |
| 5. no opinion on case merits expressed. (Para 8) |
Judgment
Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.
By way of present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail pending trial in case FIR No.50 dated 15.05.2022 under Sections 15 , 18, 25, 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Rangar Nangal, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.
2. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was working as cleaner on the truck from which recovery of 2 kg and 600 grams of opium along with 1 kg poppy husk was made.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last almost one year now and the investigation in the present case already stands concluded with the filing of challan on 07.11.2022, however, charges are yet to be framed, thus, the trial is likely to take some time. He further submits that there is no other case pending against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand learned State counsel opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner while submitting that commercial quantity of contraband has been recovered from the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book. I find substance in submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Considering the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars for almost one year now, the investigation in the present case already stands concluded with the filing of challan and trial likely to take some time as well as the fact that the recovered quantity of opium is only marginally higher than the non-commercial quantity, besides, there being no other case of similar nature pending against the petitioner, I do not find any reason to extend his incarceration any further.
7. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
8. However, nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
The court may grant regular bail pending trial based on factors such as prolonged incarceration, minimal progress in the trial, and parity with co-accused.
Prolonged detention without trial is unjustifiable, especially for first-time offenders when investigations are complete, allowing for bail even if the contraband quantity exceeds commercial limits.
The slow progress of the trial, violation of the petitioner's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and the marginal quantity of opium recovered influenced the court's decision to gra....
The court considered the noncommercial quantity of the substance recovered and the petitioner's prolonged custody as key factors in granting bail, without commenting on the merits of the case to avoi....
The Court can relax the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and consider the grant of bail for a first time offender with a recovery marginally above the commercial quantity.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
