Sandeep Singh vs State of Punjab - 2023 Supreme(P&H) 2887

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(P&H) 2887

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VIKAS BAHL, J.
Sandeep Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M NO.21794 of 2023
Decided On : 05-05-2023

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rishabh Gupta, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Ferry Sofat, Addl. A.G. Punjab.

Headnote:(A) NDPS Act, 1985 - Sections 22, 27, and 29 - Third petition for regular bail - The petitioner, in custody since 21.10.2021, contends that the quantity recovered falls under non-commercial category, warranting bail - Charges amended with no charge under Section 29 framed - Court finds that similar cases dictate that separate recoveries not to be clubbed - Petitioner granted bail with conditions. (Paras 1, 2, 5, and 7)

(B) Bail - Conditions for grant - The petitioner is required to comply with several conditions including not tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and appearing as directed by the court. (Paras 7 and 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested under FIR alleging possession of 600 tablets of tramadol, categorized under the NDPS Act for a quantity of 230 grams deemed non-commercial. The last bail application was withdrawn with liberty to reapply upon frame charges.

Findings of Court:
The petitioner is entitled to bail in light of custody duration, completion of investigation, and absence of prior involvement in other cases.

Issues: Whether recoveries from separate accused can be combined to classify quantity as commercial or non-commercial and whether the ongoing trial justifies bail.

Ratio Decidendi: The court is guided by precedents establishing that separate recoveries should not be aggregated for determining commercial quantity, supporting the grant of bail in the absence of further charges against the petitioner.

Result: Petition allowed; bail granted.

Table of Content
1. petition for bail under ndps act. (Para 1)
2. arguments for and against bail application. (Para 2 , 3)
3. court's analysis on the bail application. (Para 4 , 5)
4. strong arguable point in favor of bail. (Para 6)
5. order granting bail and conditions imposed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9)

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

This is the third petition filed under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.164 dated 21.10.2021 registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station City-1 Mansa, District Mansa and the charges have been framed under Sections 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act by the Special Court, Mansa.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 21.10.2021 and investigation is complete and challan has been presented and there are 17 prosecution witnesses, out of which, none have been examined as yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the last bail application filed by the petitioner was withdrawn on 12.01.2023 with liberty to file a fresh petition after the charges had been framed or after any substantial change in circumstance. It is contended that after passing of the said order, charges have been framed on 22.02.2023 under Sections 22 and 29 of the NDPS Act which were subsequently amended vide order dated 10.04.2023 and Section 29 of the NDPS Act was removed and Section 27 of the NDPS Act was added and thus, offences, for which the petitioner is being tried, are under Sections 22 and 27 of the NDPS Act. It is further contended that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and that in the present case, it is the case of the prosecution that the recovery from the present petitioner is of 600 tablets of TRAMWEL-100SR (Tramadol) and the intoxicant substance in the same is 230 grams which would fall under the category of non-commercial quantity as the commercial quantity for the same starts from 250 grams. It is argued that although, there is alleged recovery of intoxicant tablets from the other two co-accused but the said recovery cannot be clubbed with the recovery of the present petitioner as even as per the case of the prosecution, the petitioner and other accused were walking at the time of being apprehended and were not travelling in a car and were holding separate plastic bag in their respective hands from which the separate recoveries have been allegedly effected. It is further argued that no charge under Section 29 of the NDPS Act has been framed by the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court passed in CRM-M-2349-2016 titled as "Buta Singh @ Buti v. State of Punjab" decided on 26.02.2016 in support of his argument, that in such a situation, recoveries so effected, cannot be clubbed together. Reliance has also been placed the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarsingh Ramjibhai Barot v. State of Gujarat , reported as 2005 (7) SCC 550.

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 petitioner was walking together along with two other co-accused and the recovery effected from all the accused together falls under the category of commercial quantity and thus, bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply.

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

5. In the present case, the petitioner is in custody since 21.10.2021 and investigation is complete and challan has been presented and out of 17 prosecution witnesses, none have been examined as yet and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time. The petitioner is not involved in any other case. The recovery which has been effected from the present petitioner is of 230 grams of tramadol would fall under the category of non-commercial quantity as the commercial quantity for the same sta