IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

201 CRM-M-58290-2024 (O & M)

Date of decision: 10.01.2025 Gurjeet Singh alias Jeeta ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Present : Ms. Manjot Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sehajbir Singh Aulakh, AAG, Punjab.

*****

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.27 dated 12.02.2022, under Sections 18 and 29 (added subsequently) NDPS Act, 1985, at Police Station Makhu, District Ferozepur.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 2 years and 10 months. He has been falsely implicated in the case. There is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 57 NDPS Act. No independent witness has been joined at the time of recovery. Though challan was presented on 5.8.2022, charges have been framed only on 26.7.2024 and out of 20 prosecution witnesses; only 1 has been examined so far. The petitioner is involved in one another case under the same Act wherein the sentence awarded to him has been suspended by this Court, vide order dated 08.07.2019 passed in CRM- 31750-2018 in CRA-S-966-SB-2018. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs.

State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3. Status report by way of affidavit of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Zira, filed in the Court, is taken on record.

4. The custody certificate dated 9.01.2025, filed by the learned State counsel, is taken on record, as per which, the petitioner is behind bars for 2 years, 10 months and 22 days.

5. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who was apprehended at the spot and is involved in more case. He is, however, unable to controvert the submissions made regarding the stage of the case and as regards the submission relating to the other case is concerned.

6. Heard.

7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, “As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc.”

8. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, SLP (Criminal) No.6690/2022 decided on 25.01.2023 observed that in case of long custody period, involving quantity recovered to be of commercial nature, where the trial is yet to commence, though charges had been framed, the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be dispensed with. In the case of Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, the Division Bench of this Court observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. Similarly, in the case of Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon'ble the Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In the case of Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab, CRM-M-31504-2022, decided on 06.02.2023, this Court granted bail to a first offender from whom commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered and only 2 out of 13 PWs have been examined, by observing that in view of delayed trial, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent and the petitioner can be granted bail, keeping in mind