Lakhwinder Singh alias Happy vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2875

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Lakhwinder Singh alias Happy – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-18526 of 2023
Decided On : 04-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Gurpal Singh Sandhu, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 22 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Application for regular bail granted after more than two years of custody and no witnesses examined - Previous bail applications withdrawn - Incarceration held violative of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. (Paras 2, 11, and 12)

(B) Relevant Case Law - Cited judgments illustrating that long periods of custody can justify bail are referenced. (Paras 3, 6, 8, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2021 for alleged offences under the NDPS Act, with 18 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined and investigations complete. Previous bail applications were withdrawn.

Findings of Court:
The Court found the petitioner's continued incarceration unjustified, given the length of time in custody and the lack of trial progress.

Issues: The Court addressed whether the lengthy period of custody justified bail despite the serious nature of the charges.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the importance of Article 21 concerning the right to a speedy trial and held that a lengthy detention without trial constituted a basis for bail.

Result: Petitioners' bail application allowed, and conditions set for bail were outlined.

Table of Content
1. petition for regular bail under ndps act. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding custody and need for bail. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. supreme court precedents on bail considerations. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
4. conditions under which bail is granted. (Para 11 , 12)
5. ordering of bail and specified conditions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is the third petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.68 dated 20.06.2021, under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar Moga, District Moga.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 20.06.2021 (more than 2 years) and investigation is complete and challan has presented and there are 18 prosecution witnesses, none of whom have been examined and thus, trial is likely to take time and the petitioner is not involved in any other case. It is further submitted that the first bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn on 08.09.2022 at that stage and the second bail application of the petitioner was withdrawn at that stage on 27.02.2023 and thereafter, sufficient period of time has lapsed and yet the trial has not been concluded and thus, the same entitles the petitioner to file the present petition. It is further submitted that further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of the right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CRM-3773-2019 in CRA-D-198-DB-2017 titled as Bhupender Singh v. Narcotic Control Bureau, order dated 22.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 titled as "Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh v. The State of Gujarat, order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.245/2020 titled as "Chitta Biswas Alias Subhas v. The State of West Bengal", order dated 05.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1169 of 2022 titled as "Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma v. Union of India,", order dated 01.08.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5769/2022 titled as " Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan v. The State of West Bengal ", in support of his arguments to the effect that on the basis of long custody alone, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Harbhagwan Singh, has opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail and has submitted that the recovery effected from the present petitioner was of commercial quantity. However, he has not disputed the custody period of the petitioner as has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner and that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.

5. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh's case (Supra), had held as under:-

"We are inclined to release the petitioner on bail only on the ground that he has spent about two years in custody and conclusion of trial will take some time.

Consequently, without expressing any views on the merits of the case and taking into consideration the custody period of the petitioner, this special leave petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Special Judge/ concerned Trial Court.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of."

The above-said case was also a case under the NDPS Act, 1985 and the FIR had been registered under Sections 8 (c), 21(c) and 29 of the said Act. The case of the prosecution therein was that the recovery from the said petitioner (t