2024 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 209
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Jasjit Singh Bedi, J
NARINDER SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB – Respondent
CRM-M-17312-2024 (O & M)
Advocates:
Mr. Vikas Dahiya, Advocate, Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab
The court granted bail to a first-time offender under the NDPS Act, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial and the need for compliance with mandatory provisions.
Headnote:(A) Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Section 18 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail application - Petitioner apprehended with 4.5 kgs. of opium - Mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 not complied with - First-time offender in custody since 08.01.2023 - Only 02 out of 14 prosecution witnesses examined - Court considers the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution - Petitioner granted bail with conditions. (Paras 1-12)
(B) Bail - Considerations for grant - The court noted that the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted in light of the right to a speedy trial, especially for first-time offenders. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was arrested with 4.5 kgs. of opium and contended that he was falsely implicated. The mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act were not followed, and he had been in custody since 08.01.2023 with only 02 prosecution witnesses examined.
Findings of Court:
The petitioner was granted bail due to the delay in trial and his status as a first-time offender, with conditions imposed to ensure his appearance at trial.
Issues: The main issues were the compliance with mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the justification for granting bail despite the recovery of a commercial quantity of contraband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of the right to a speedy trial and noted that the petitioner’s circumstances warranted the grant of bail despite the provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act. The court also highlighted the precedent set in similar cases.
Result: Petition allowed; petitioner granted bail.
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.03 dated 08.01.2023 under Section 18 of the NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar Nabha, District Patiala.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be apprehended with 4.5 kgs. of opium.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act had not been complied with in their proper perspective. No independent witness was joined at the time of search and seizure. As he was a first-time offender, in custody since 08.01.2023 and 1 of 6 ::2::- only 02 out of the 14 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, the trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon and therefore, he was entitled to the concession of bail in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 arising out of judgment and order dated 04.05.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.442/2022, decided on 01.08.2022 and Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023 arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 29.11.2022 in CRM(NDPS) No.1323/2022, decided on 04.05.2023,.
4. On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered from the petitioner.
Therefore, in view of the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, the petitioner was not entitled to the grant of bail. She, however, concedes that the petitioner was a first time offender, in custody since 08.01.2023 and only 02 of the 14 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) Nos.5769/2022 Decided on 01.08.2022 held as under:-
“As per the office report dated 29.07.2022, copy of the show cause notice along with Special Leave Petition was supplied to the Standing Counsel for the State of West Bengal and separate notice has been served on the State also.
However, no one has entered appearance on their behalf.
The petitioner seeks enlargement on bail in F.I.R. No. 612 of 2020 dated 17.10.2020 filed under Section 21(c) and 37 of the NDPS 2 Act, registered at Police Station Bongaon, West Bengal.
During the course of the hearing, we are informed that the petitioner has undergone custody for a period of 01 year and 07 months as on 09.06.2022. The trial is at a preliminary stage, as only one witness has been examined.
The petitioner does not have any criminal antecedents .
Taking into consideration the period of sentence undergone by the petitioner and all the attending circumstances but without expressing any views in the merits of the case, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.
The petitioner is accordingly, directed to be released on bail subject to him furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
The Special Leave Petition is disposed of on the aforestated terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
7. In Hasanujjaman & others Versus The State of West Bengal, SLP (Crl.) No.(s).3221/2023 , decided on 04.05.2023, held as under:-
“1. There are three petitioners in this Special Leave Petition, who were accused of committing an offence under Sections 21(c)/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, `NDPS Act’) in FIR No.18/2022, dated
09.01.2022, registered at Police Station Islampur, District Murshidabad, West Bengal.
2. The allegations are that when the police party intercepted the petitioners along with another person riding on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in 3 of 6 ::4::-
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
