Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(P&H) 1077

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
Mandeep Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 10953 of 2024
Decided On : 07-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Tanvir Joshi, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Prabhdeep Singh, Asstt. A.G., Punjab.

The court granted bail under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the significance of the duration of custody and absence of criminal antecedents.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 37 - Grant of bail - Petitioner, having undergone over two and a half years of custody, is entitled to bail considering the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - Co-accused granted bail - Rigors of Section 37 can be diluted. (Paras 9, 10, 12)

(B) Bail - Consideration for bail - The court considers the duration of custody and absence of criminal antecedents as significant factors in granting bail, especially when co-accused have been granted bail. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested under the NDPS Act and has been in custody since 22.02.2022. He has been falsely implicated, and only 1 out of 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined. A co-accused has been granted bail.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, subject to conditions including regular appearance before the police and preparation of a fixed deposit receipt.

Issues: The main issues were the duration of custody, the implications of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and the comparison with co-accused's bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the substantial period of custody and the absence of criminal antecedents justify the grant of bail, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial.

Result: Petition allowed.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Jasjit Singh Bedi, J.

This 3rd under Section 439 Cr.PC is for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.63 dated 22.02.2022 registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 27 of the NDPS Act, added later on) at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa.

2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on patrolling duty two youth were apprehended. One of the persons disclosed his name as Sandeep Singh (granted bail vide order dated 21.09.2023 passed in CRM-M-35777-2023) son of Sambhu Singh whereas the other disclosed his name as Mandeep Singh (petitioner) son of Harmander Singh. The recovery of 15 vials of Omerex and 300 tablets of Carisoma effected from the petitioner-Sandeep Singh and the recovery of 15 vials of Omerex and 300 tablets of Carisoma was effected from Mandeep Singh.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There was violation of mandatory provisions of the Act regarding search and seizure including Sections 42 and 50. The petitioner was in custody since 22.02.2022 and only 01 out of the 12 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In one other case registered against the petitioner FIR No.152 dated 30.08.2016, under section 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985, P.S. Sri. Muktsar Sahib, he is on bail. He, therefore, prays that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman & others v. The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No. (s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail moreso when a co-accused namely, Sandeep Singh had been granted the concession of bail.

4. A short reply dated 06.08.2024 by way of an affidavit of Manjit Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Budhlada, District Mansa has been filed on behalf of the State by the learned counsel for the State. The same is taken on record. He contends that the petitioner is an accused in one other case under the NDPS Act. Therefore, he was not entitled to the concession of bail. He, however, concedes that the petitioner was in custody since 22.02.2022 and only 01 out of the 12 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and in one other case registered against him, he had been granted the concession of bail. The copy of the said order dated 26.10.2016 is marked as X.

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

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on 01.08.2022 held as under:-

"As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also. However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.

The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.

During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined. The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents.

Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subjec

Click Here to Read the rest of this document