JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Moudgil, J. (Oral)

Relief sought

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 13, dated 19.02.2023 under Sections 22 and 29 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act added later on) registered at Police Station Khanauri, District Sangrur, Punjab.

2. Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no evidence against the petitioner which would connect her with the commission of crime. It is further submitted that co-accused Amandeep Kaur, daughter of the petitioner has been granted the concession of regular bail by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.01.2024 passed in CRM-M-39828-2023. The petitioner is behind the bars since 19.02.2023, investigation in the case is complete. Challan stands presented on 15.06.2023 and charges were framed on 08.08.2023. Out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, 9 have been examined as on date. No other criminal case is pending against the petitioner under the NDPS Act or otherwise. The petitioner has undergone 1 year 5 months and 22 days in custody, meaning thereby trial of the case is moving at a slow pace and conclusion of the same may take sufficient time and therefore, further incarceration of the petitioner would serve no useful purpose.

Notice of motion.

On behalf of the State

3. On the asking of Court, Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has produced the custody certificate dated 13.08.2024 of petitioner, which is taken on record subject to just exceptions and vehemently opposes the concession of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature and the alleged intoxicant tablets recovered in the present case falls within the ambit of commercial quantity. However, he could not controvert the custody period undergone by the petitioner.

Reply dated 12.08.2024 by way of an affidavit of Mr. Parminder Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Moonak on behalf of the respondent-State of Punjab, filed by learned State counsel in Court today is ordered to be taken on record subject to just exceptions.

4. Analysis

Investigation in the case is complete and challan stands presented on 15.06.2023 and charges were framed on 08.08.2023. Out of the total 14 prosecution witnesses, 9 have been examined as on date which makes it apparent that trial of the case is moving at a snail's pace and may take long time to conclude therefore, no useful purpose would be served by further incarceration of the petitioner.

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in its latest judgment passed in 'Jalaluddin Khan vs. Union of India' 2024 Live Law (SC) 571, observed as under

"21. Before we part with the Judgment, we must mention here that the Special Court and the High Court did not consider the material in the charge sheet objectively. Perhaps the focus was more on the activities of PFI, and therefore, the appellant's case could not be properly appreciated. When a case is made out for a grant of bail, the Courts should not have any hesitation in granting bail. The allegations of the prosecution may be very serious. But, the duty of the Courts is to consider the case for grant of bail in accordance with the law. "Bail is the rule and jail is an exception" is a settled law. Even in a case like the present case where there are stringent conditions for the grant of bail in the relevant statutes, the same rule holds good with only modification that the bail can be granted if the conditions in the statute are satisfied. The rule also means that once a case is made out for the grant of bail, the Court cannot decline to grant bail. If the Courts start denying bail in deserving cases, it will be a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of our Constitution. "

Reliance can be made upon the judgme