Sukhchain Singh Alias Kaka vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2308

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J.
Sukhchain Singh Alias Kaka – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-55212 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 29-08-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate with Ms. Sonia Parmar Rana, Advocate and Ms. Himani, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Senior DAG, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 439 - Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act - Sections 22(c), 61, 85, and 29 - Grant of bail - Accused is in custody for 1 year and 3 months, with only a slight amount above the commercial quantity of Tramadol recovered - Prosecution witnesses have not been examined despite charges framed 9 months ago, raising concerns about the delay in trial and violation of Article 21 - Previous judgments highlight that prolonged incarceration without fault should be considered when granting bail - Detention without trial raises constitutional issues. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 11)

(B) Rights of the accused - The right to a speedy trial is part of the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 - Prolonged detainment for more than 1 year without trial, especially when the prosecution has not shown a valid reason for delay, necessitates bail. (Paras 6, 9)

(C) Conditions for bail under NDPS Act - Court should reasonably assess the material to understand if the accused is guilty or not, particularly in cases of long delay in trial. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner alleged recovery of 255.45 grams of Tramadol, a quantity slightly above the commercial limit; he has no other NDPS-related cases and claims false implication.

Findings of Court:
Bail granted, ruling that the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act does not apply due to the prolonged delay and lack of evidence from the prosecution.

Issues: The impact of long custody on the right to bail and conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for timely justice and the implications of undue delay on constitutional rights, stating that, in this case, the petitioner should be granted bail.

Result: Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petition details and legal basis for bail. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding custody and prosecution delay. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's examination of trial delays and effects on article 21. (Para 5 , 6)
4. judicial interpretations regarding bail under ndps act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)
5. application of bail considerations under section 37 of ndps act. (Para 10)
6. final ruling on granting bail to the petitioner. (Para 11 , 12 , 13)

JUDGMENT

Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.169 dated 16.05.2022, under Sections 22 (c), 61, 85 of the NDPS Act and Section 29 of the NDPS Act added later on, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, Punjab.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 1 year and 3 months and in the present case, there was an alleged recovery of 255.45 grams of Tramadol from the petitioner, which is slightly higher than the commercial quantity as per the NDPS Act. He further submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and has no criminal background except for one FIR registered under Sections 323, 427, 451 and 34 of the IPC but there is no FIR under the NDPS Act against the petitioner and it was only because of the aforesaid pendency of the FIR that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. To substantiate his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the charges in the present case were framed on 15.11.2022 and almost 9 months have elapsed and till date not even a single prosecution witness has been examined. He further submitted that as per the allegations, the police party had seen the petitioner carrying a plastic bag in his right hand from where allegedly the aforesaid Tramadol was recovered and an offer was made to the petitioner, to which the petitioner had stated that he would give his consent to be searched from the ASI himself who had given him the offer. He further submitted that the entire story of the police was a concocted story and the present case has been planted upon the petitioner and that was the reason as to why the prosecution witnesses are not coming forth for deposition before the learned trial Court despite the fact that about 9 months have elapsed after the framing of the charges and not even a single witness has been examined with a result that the petitioner had to face incarceration for about 1 year and 3 months for no fault of his. He referred to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of " Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another", 2022(10) SCC 51, "Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain v. State (NCT of Delhi)" , AIR 2023 SC 1648 , Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.6690 of 2022 titled as "Dheeraj Kumar Shukla v. The State of Uttar Pradesh" and Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169 of 2023 titled as "Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha" to contend that in such like situation where the accused is not at fault and the custody is perpetuated, then the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is to be seen in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. On the other hand, Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Senior DAG, Punjab has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per the custody certificate filed, the petitioner is in custody for about 1 year 3 months and 11 days and there is no other case under the NDPS Act against the petitioner except for one case under Sections 323, 427, 451 and 34 of the IPC. He has however opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the recovered quantity although is little higher than the commercial quantity but still the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will be applicable in the present case.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The petitioner is stated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document