Ram Niwas vs State of Haryana - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 1834

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 1834

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Aman Chaudhary, J.
Ram Niwas – Appellant
Versus
State of Haryana – Respondent
CRM-M No. 27913 of 2023
Decided On : 03-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Mr. Dhruv Sihag AAG, Haryana

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 20, 61, 85, and 37 - Bail application - Petitioner in custody for over 1 year and 6 months for alleged possession of combustible drugs - Precedent established by Supreme Court regarding bail in similar circumstances considered - Court found trial likely to take considerable time and further incarceration not serving any purpose. (Paras 1, 6, 7)

(B) Right to speedy trial - Court highlights the significance of timely trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, balancing with provisions of harsh bail conditions as per NDPS Act. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested pursuant to FIR No.774 for alleged possession of commercial quantity of contraband, contested as falsely implicated; co-accused granted bail; minimal progress in the trial phase with only 2 of 13 witnesses examined.

Findings of Court:
Given lengthy detention, no prior issues, and circumstances including co-accused's bail, release on bail is justified, with conditions to oversee the trial process.

Issues: The main issues include evaluation of compliance with NDPS provisions, the effect of prolonged detention on bail eligibility, and the adequacy of evidence available.

Ratio Decidendi: Court noted the precedents allowing for bail even under Section 37's constraints, emphasizing the need for a balance with the accused's right to a speedy trial.

Result: Petition for regular bail allowed, petitioner ordered to be released with stipulated conditions.

Table of Content
1. petition filed for bail under ndps act. (Para 1)
2. claims of false implication and custody duration. (Para 2)
3. opposition based on recovery amount; lacks strong counter. (Para 4)
4. long custody allows bail despite commercial quantity. (Para 6)
5. bail granted; conditions set for petitioner. (Para 7 , 8)
6. conditions and limitations clarified for bail order. (Para 9 , 10)

Judgment

Mr. Aman Chaudhary , J.

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.774 dated 24.12.2021, registered under Section 20 /61/85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year and 6 months. He has been falsely implicated in the present case as the alleged recovery of 1 kg and 466 grams of Sulpha (Cannabis) has been foisted on him. Similarly placed co-accused-Ram from whom 1 kg and 008 grams of Sulpha (Cannabis) was recovered, has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 22.02.2023, Annexure P-2 having custody of 1 year and 2 months. The mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act was not complied with, while effecting the recovery of the contraband. He further submits that out of 13 PWs, only 2 have been examined as yet. The petitioner is not involved in any other case.

3. The custody certificate dated 02.07.2023 has been filed by learned State counsel, which is taken on record. As per the same, the petitioner is behind bars since 25.12.2021.

4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner. He is however unable to controvert the submissions with regard to the stage of the case, the period of custody and he being not involved in any other case.

5. Heard.

6. Hon’ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No.6690/2022 decided on 25.01.2023 observed that in case of long custody period, involving quantity recovered to be of commercial nature, where the trial is yet to commence, though charges had been framed, the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be dispensed with. Similarly, in the case of Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon’ble The Supreme Court of India granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In the case of Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, the Division Bench of this Court observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. This Court in the case of Balraj Singh vs. State of Punjab CRM-M-57386-2022, decided on 14.12.2022 has followed the dictum laid down by Hon’ble The Supreme Court of India and granted the bail to the petitioner therein after he had undergone total custody of 1 year and 6 months. In the case of Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022 , decided on 06.02.2023, this Court granted bail to a first offender from whom commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered and only 2 out of 13 PWs have been examined, by observing that in view of delayed trial, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent and the petitioner can be granted bail, keeping in mind the right to a speedy trial as envisaged Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

7. Keeping in view the afore-referred judgments and the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 1 year and 6 months; not involved in any other case; co-accused-Ram has already been released on bail; there are total 13 PWs, out of which only 2 have been examin

Click Here to Read the rest of this document