PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
Namit Kumar, J.
Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakhi – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M No.9762 of 2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 22-07-2024
ORDER :
Namit Kumar, J. (Oral)
In compliance of order dated 26.04.2024, short reply by way of affidavit of Sumit Sood, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Adampur, District Jalandhar (Rural) along with custody certificate dated 21.07.2024, has been filed in the Court today on behalf of respondent-State, which are taken on record.2. Prayer in this 3rd petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.59 dated 12.08.2021, registered under Sections 15(C) of the NDPS Act (Section 27 of the NDPS Act, added later on) at Police Station Patara, Jalandhar, District Jalandhar.
3. As per prosecution case, the allegations levelled in the FIR are that on 12.08.2021 SI Pankaj Kumar alongwith other police officials was patrolling and present at Narangpur Chowk and there he received a secret information that Lakhwinder Singh (petitioner herein) is indulged in large scale smuggling of poppy husk and he is using one Alto car bearing registration No.PB-08-BC-8190 for smuggling the same. The secret informer further informed him that Lakhwinder Singh is coming on his Alto car via Isharwal, Nauli towards Narangpur Khichipur and if a naka is laid down, then he can be apprehended with large quantity of Poppy Husk. Thereafter, a naka was laid down and the accused was apprehended and 100 Kgs of Poppy Husk was recovered from him and during interrogation, he also suffered a confessional statement and got recovered another 20 Kgs of Poppy Husk. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that despite the direction issued by this Court to conclude the trial expeditiously without granting unnecessary and unwarranted adjournments, vide order dasted 11.09.2023, passed in CRM-M No.25310 of 2023, the trial has not been concluded so far. He submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years 11 months and 02 days.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the investigation in the present case is complete as challan stands presented on 22.12.2021; charges have been framed and out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, only 06 PWs have been examined so far and the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude and, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioner behind the bars.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another", 2022(10) SCC 51, to contend that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the serious issue with regard to repeated adjournments and its effect upon the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. He has also referred to a latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in "Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)", 2023 AIR (Supreme Court) 1648 to contend that when there is a long delay in the trial and especially when it is not the fault of the accused and in that situation even the effect of Section 37 of the NDPS Act will be diluted in the given facts and circumstances of each and every case.
7. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and apart from the present FIR, he is involved in two more cases i.e. FIR No.16 dated 25.02.2017 registered under Section 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar and FIR No.83 dated 10.10.2019, registered under Section 15/61/85 of the NDPS Act at Police Station Nurmahal, District Jalandhar, therefore, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.
However, he could not refute that out of total 13 prosecution witnesses only 06 PWs have been examined till date; petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years 11 months and 02 days a
Prolonged custody without trial completion justifies bail, emphasizing the need to evaluate the accused's role rather than solely relying on past offenses.
Prolonged incarceration and delay in trial can justify bail even in cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act; the bar under Section 37 may be overridden based on clean antecedents and....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.