Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2877

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Chanchal – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M NO. 26325 of 2023
Decided On : 10-10-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Gaurav Datta, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Kunal Muthreja, AAG, Punjab.

Prolonged custody without trial, combined with completed investigation, can justify granting bail under Article 21, even with serious charges under the NDPS Act.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22, 61, 85, and 37 - Regular bail application - Petitioner in custody since 02.09.2021, investigation complete, with only one of 15 witnesses examined, thus trial likely to take time - Court noted that continued incarceration violates Article 21 rights. (Paras 1, 17, 18)

(B) Bail Criteria - Long periods of custody can warrant bail irrespective of allegations, particularly when investigation is complete and trial delay is evident, citing case precedents. (Paras 18)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.239 under NDPS Act, alleging only one witness examined from 15 total, and last application dismissed as withdrawn.

Findings of Court:
Bail granted acknowledging period of custody and likelihood of trial delay.

Issues: Whether prolonged custody without trial justifies bail despite accusations of commercial quantity involvement.

Ratio Decidendi: Invoked legal precedents for bail based on long custody, affirming it aligns with rights under Article 21.

Result: Petition allowed, petitioner to be released on bail with conditions.

Table of Content
1. petition for bail under ndps (Para 1)
2. arguments for and against bail (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. consideration of case law on bail (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. granting bail based on custody length (Para 18)
5. conditions for bail and trial conduct (Para 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral

This is the third petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.239 dated 02.09.2021 registered under Sections 22 /61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ( Section 29 of the NDPS Act has been added later on) at Police Station Gobindgarh Mandi, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 02.09.2021 and the investigation is complete and challan has been presented and there are 15 prosecution witnesses, out of which, only one witness has been examined as yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and the last bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn at that stage on 02.02.2023 and even thereafter, the trial has not made any progress, thus, entitling the petitioner to file the present bail petition and keeping in view the custody of the petitioner, he deserves the concession of regular bail, as any further incarceration would be violative of the right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein, solely on the basis of the custody, the concession of bail has been granted. Reliance has also been placed upon an order of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in CRM-3773-2019 in CRA-D-198-DB-2017 in case titled as "Bhupender Singh v. Narcotic Control Bureau".

3. On the other hand, learned State counsel has opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted that the recovery effected from the petitioner falls within the category of commercial quantity and thus, bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner is involved in one more case under the Excise Act.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted that the petitioner has been released on probation in the above said case and has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in " Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P . and another", reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:-

"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has gone through the paper-book.

6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide order dated 04.05.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).3221/2023 in case titled as Hasanujjaman and others v. The State of West Bengal, had observed as under:-

"xxx xxx xxx xxx. They were arrested on the spot and have been in custody for more than one year and four months.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

4. The investigation is complete; charge-sheet has been filed, though the charges are yet to be framed. The conclusion of trial will, thus, take some reasonable time, regardless of the direction issued by the High Court to conclude the same within one year from the date of framing of charges. The petitioners do not have any criminal antecedents. There is