Kuldeep Singh @ Deep @ Deepu vs State of Punjab

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2879

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Kuldeep Singh @ Deep @ Deepu – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-31929 of 2023
Decided On : 12-07-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. KBS Mann, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. Rohit Bansal, Sr. DAG, Punjab with ASI Amrik Singh.

Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Sections 22

(C) and 37 - Grant of bail - Petitioner in custody for over two years with 16 witnesses, only one examined - Court grants bail, highlighting violation of Article 21 of the Constitution due to prolonged incarceration - Conditions imposed on bail to prevent evidence tampering and witness intimidation. (Paras 2, 13, 15)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, facing charges under the NDPS Act, has been in custody since 22.05.2021, and the investigation and trial are ongoing, with significant delays. Last bail application was dismissed as withdrawn.

Findings of Court:
The Court deemed it appropriate to grant regular bail due to the length of custody, completed investigation, and lack of other involvements.

Issues: The primary issues were related to the lengthy custody period, the readiness of the trial, and the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that prolonged custody without trial infringes upon the constitutional rights of the accused, warranting bail despite the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act.

Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted regular bail with conditions.

Table of Content
1. petition filed for bail under ndps act. (Para 1)
2. arguments for and against bail application. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. court's observations on precedent cases. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
4. decision to grant bail based on custody length. (Para 14)
5. conditions of bail and conclusion. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18)

JUDGMENT

Mr. Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is the second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.125 dated 22.05.2021 registered under Sections 22 (C) of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station City Lambi, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 22.05.2021 (more than 2 years and 1 month), and the investigation is complete and challan has been presented and there are 16 witnesses out of which, only one has been examined till date and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and that the last bail application of the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn, at that stage, on 17.11.2022 and thereafter sufficient period has lapsed and thus entitling the petitioner to file present petition for bail. 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 that on the basis of long custody alone, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

4. 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 affected in the present case is of commercial quantity, thus, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would apply and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail.

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."

7. 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 (therein) was of commercial quantity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed that the concession of bail was granted to the petitioner (ther