IMPORTANT POINT
Prolonged custody and trial delays can warrant the relaxation of bail conditions under the NDPS Act, balancing individual rights with legal provisions.

JUDGMENT :

HARSH BUNGER, J.

1. This is second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of petitioner (Gurdeep Singh alias Vicky) for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 4 dated 05.01.2022, registered under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the NDPS. Act’), at Police Station Moonak, District Sangrur.

2. The first petition filed under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CRM-M-13591-2023) by petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 27.04.2023 (Annexure P-5).

3. Status report dated 18.03.2024 by way of affidavit of Mr. Parminder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Moonak, District Sangrur and custody certificate dated 17.03.2024 of the petitioner have already been filed, which are on record.

4. Briefly, the aforesaid case FIR was registered on the basis of a ruqa prepared by ASI Jagjit Singh, who averred that on 05.01.2022, when he alongwith other police officials was present at Old Bus Stand, Moonak, then at about 08.15 am, he received an information from a special informer that Gurdeep Singh alias Vicky (petitioner herein), is used to sell the intoxicant tablets while moving, he was standing in wait for selling the intoxicant tablets at T-Point Balran Road, Moonak. It was informed that if a raid is conducted then said Gurdeep Singh alias Vicky could be caught with intoxicant tablets. Considering the said information to be reliable, ASI Jagjit Singh contacted the SHO Police Station Moonak and apprised him about the information and also asked him (SHO) to send another competent official/investigating officer at the spot.

5. Pursuant to secret information, ASI Balbir Singh raided at T-Point Balran Road, Moonak; where one person was seen standing with a polythene envelope in his hands, who on seeing the police party, got nervous and tried to fled away after throwing the polythene envelope on the ground, due to which the strips of intoxicating tablets scattered on the ground. However, he was caught by police party; who on interrogation, disclosed his name Gurdeep Singh alias Vicky. When the strips of tablets scattered on the ground were collected and counted, the same were found to be 1500 intoxicant tablets of Alprasafe-0.5. The intoxicant tablets were taken into police possession.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the instant case. It is contended that no recovery has been effected from the petitioner, rather the recovery of intoxicating tablets has been planted on the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has undergone actual custody in the instant case for a period of 2 years, 2 months and 10 days (as on 17.03.2024); investigation in the case is complete; challan stands presented on 30.06.2022; charges have been framed on 21.07.2022 and out of 12 prosecution witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date, therefore, trial in the case is likely to take some time to conclude and no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for indefinite period. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is willing to furnish security in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) also before the concerned Court, so as to ensure his presence before the Court on each and every date of hearing. Accordingly, prayer for grant of regular bail is made.

8. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of petitioner for grant of regular bail on the ground of seriousness and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that in the instant case, the recovery of 1500 intoxicant tablets from the petitioner, falls under the category of ‘commercial quantity’ and thus, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act are attracted in this case. It is a