SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 241

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Harkesh Manuja, J.
Devinder Singh @ Bheero – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No. 37377 of 2023
Decided On : 26-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Parties : Mr. Ashok Giri, Mr. Davinder Bir Singh Sr. DAG, Punjab

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.

Headnote:

NDPS Act - Bail - The court granted regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. pending trial in a case involving the alleged recovery of 280 kgs. of poppy husk. The court considered the petitioner's prolonged incarceration, minimal progress in the trial, and the fact that the co-accused had already been granted bail, and found no justification to extend the petitioner's incarceration.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought regular bail pending trial in a case involving the alleged recovery of 280 kgs. of poppy husk under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 1985.

Finding of the Court:

The court granted the petitioner regular bail, considering the prolonged incarceration, minimal progress in the trial, and the fact that the co-accused had already been granted bail.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted regular bail pending trial in a case involving the alleged recovery of poppy husk.

Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the prolonged incarceration, minimal progress in the trial, and the fact that the co-accused had already been granted bail as justifications for granting the petitioner regular bail.

Final Decision: The court allowed the present petition and ordered the petitioner to be released on regular bail pending trial.

Judgment

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, J.

The petitioner, by way of present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeks grant of regular bail pending trial in case bearing FIR No. 31 dated 04.03.2022, under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Patiala, District Patiala, wherein he was implicated against the alleged recovery of 280 kgs. of poppy husk.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 04.03.2022 while the co-accused-Gurjeet Singh @ Gurjit Singh @ Sodhi (owner / driver of the tuck) has already been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 19.04.2023 passed in CRM-M-17172-2023; thus, prayer is for bail on parity.

3. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner while referring to the huge recovery of contraband involved in the present FIR, besides the involvement of the petitioner in two other cases under the provisions of IPC.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper-book.

5. In the present case, the investigation already stands concluded with the filing of challan followed by framing of charges; however, out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 04 have been examined so far. The petitioner is behind the bars since 04.03.2022, i.e. for the past almost two years and the conclusion of trial may take long time. Besides it, he is not involved in any other case of similar nature, i.e under NDPS Act. Considering the aforesaid facts, especially, when the petitioner has been arrayed with the allegation being co-passenger, whereas the owner/driver of the truck, namely, Gurjeet Singh @ Gurjit Singh @ Sodhi, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 19.04.2023 passed in CRM-M-17172-2023, I do not find any justification to extend the incarceration of the petitioner.

6. In view of the above, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court / Illaqa Magistrate / Duty Magistrate concerned.

7. It is made clear that this order may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

8. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also disposed off.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top