The presumption of innocence dictates that bail is the general rule, with imprisonment being the exception; humane discretion in bail decisions is essential.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.

1. Prayer The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. ( now 483 BNSS ) has been invoked second time by the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.283 dated 31.08.2022, under Section 18 NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Derabassi, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

2. Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case with ulterior motive and nothing has been recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has an unblemished record. Moreover it is argued that it is highly unlikely that any person carrying contraband would carry the same in a transparent polythene envelope so as to invite attention of the police.

On behalf of the State

On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record. According to which, the petitioner has suffered incarceration for a period of 2 years, 10 months and 12 days, as of now. He prays for dismissal of the present petition stating that the recovery i.e. 2 Kg 600 Grams of Opium fall under the commercial quantity and therefore Sections 37 of NDPS Act would be attracted.

4. Analysis

Be that as it may, considering the custody period undergone by the petitioner i.e. 02 years, 10 months and 12 days added with the facts that the recovered contraband is marginally over and above the commercial quantity; investigation is complete, wherein after framing of charges on 25.05.2023 out of total 13 prosecution witnesses, 05 witnesses have been examined. Moreover it is believed to be highly unlikely for a reasonably prudent man and carry 200 kg 600 grams of contraband in a transparent polythene in plain sight as alleged in the FIR. This information is suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial shall take considerable time, this Court is of the considering view that detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period would serve no purpose.

Taking into consideration the following orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court wherein the recovery from the accused was marginally over and above the commercial quantity for the respective contraband in each case, the Courts have taken a lenient view while granting bail to the accused therein i.e. Sukhchain Singh @ Manga Versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-7857-2022 decided on 04.04.2022, Pardeep Singh versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-46244-2022 decided on 19.01.2023, Hari Yadav @ Haiya versus State of Punjab (CRM-M-37645-2021)' decided on 11.11.2022 ' Jang Kanwar Versus State of Punjab (CRM-M-53415-2021)' decided on 19.01.2022, ' Shankar Prashad Chanau Versus The State of Punjab , CRM- M-24090-2020, decided on 27.08.2020, Gurpreet Kumar Versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-17021-2021, decided on 31.08.2021, Salim Versus State of Haryana , CRM-M-42436-2020, decided on 24.02.2021, Gagandeep Versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-3055-2021, decided on 27.01.2021, Gurpreet Gopi Versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-41039-2019, Singh decided on 26.02.2020 Dalbara Singh Versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-47880-2022 decided on 16.01.2023', and Vivek Watts versus State of Punjab , CRM-M-13791-2022 decided on 15.02.2023

Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in “ Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another ”, 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-

“2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is believed to be innocent until fou