Ranjodh Singh Alias Jodha v. State of Punjab (2024:PHHC:47452)

Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Decided: 8 April 2024
Bench: Jasjit Singh Bediauthor
Case no.: CRM-M 58746/2023

Official PDF Read full judgment Report an error

Judgment

JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J. ndThis 2 petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.38 dated 08.04.2021 registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Khilchain, District Amritsar.

¶2The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be apprehended with 2250 intoxicating tablets, a Splendor motorcycle and a mobile phone.

¶3The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. There was violation of mandatory provisions of the Act regarding search and seizure including Sections 42 and 50. The petitioner was in custody since 23.12.2021 and only 06 out of the 11 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far. Therefore, the Trial of the present case was not likely to be concluded anytime soon. In CRM-M-58746-2023 -2-one other case registered against the petitioner bearing FIR No.188 dated

10.09.2020 under Sections 22/61/85 of the NDPS Act, 1985, P.S. Khilchian, he is on interim bail. He, therefore, prays that 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, the petitioner was entitled to the concession of bail.

¶4On the other hand, the learned State counsel contends that the petitioner is an accused in one other case under the NDPS Act. Therefore, he was not entitled to the concession of bail. She, however, concedes that the petitioner was in custody since 23.12.2021, only 06 of the 11 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far and in one other case registered against him, he had been granted the concession of interim bail. The copy of the said order dated 12.10.2020 is marked as ?.

¶5I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶6The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of �� !"#$%&%%�'�(�� &)�&*�%&%% 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 CRM-M-58746-2023 -3-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. '+��(�+��,�-��.�� +��(+�� &)��&!�.��&#�&"�%&%%�� .��,��-��/��0�.�� 1��(��.��(��. 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."

¶7In 2��+33�.��4��+��, ��5%%)$%&%5,��(��&6�& �%&%5,�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 CRM-M-58746-2023 -4-on two motorcycles, they were found in possession of codeine phosphate in a consignment of phensedyl bottles loaded in two nylon bags. During the search, 115 bottles (100 ml. each) of phensedyl were recovered from the joint possession of the petitioners. ��-��1� /��(+��.��+��.��

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record.

¶4 ��1��(�.��7�(�� /��,��+��(��/��.�� (��(�+��-��,��+�,��.��/��.�, ��(��+��/��2��+�� (��(�+�� .�� -�� . �� .�� (�� 1� � �� (��.�� (�� , � ��+�, � �+/�� (�.��(��(��5!��'��(��

5. In such circumstances, but without expressing any views on the merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to release the petitioners on bail subject to the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Trial Court.

¶6 Additionally, it is clarified that in case the petitioners are found involved in any other case under the NDPS Act or other penal law, it shall amount to misuse of the concession of bail granted to them today, and in such a case, necessary consequences shall follow.

7. The petitioners are further directed to appear before the Trial Court regularly. In the event of they being absent, it shall again be taken as a misuse of concession of bail.

8. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

9. As a result, pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of. (emphasis supplied) CRM-M-58746-2023 -5-

8. Admittedly, in 8�� 9� ��+�� 82��+33�.��4��9 (supra), the accused therein had been granted the concession of bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court after they had undergone approximately one and a half years of custody. They were also first-time offenders as is borne out from the orders.

¶9In the present case, the petitioner has undergone more than two and a half years of custody. In the one other case registered against him, he has been granted the concession of interim bail. In view of the fact that the petitioner has undergone a substantial period of custody, the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent in view of the salutary provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides for the right to a speedy trial and the case of the petitioner can be considered for the grant of bail.

¶10Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner-Ranjodh Singh @ Jodh son of Jetha Singh is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶11The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the trial and inform in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the cases mentioned in this order.

¶12In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare an FDR in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial CRM-M-58746-2023 -6-Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law in case of the absence of the petitioner from trial without sufficient cause.

¶13The petition stands disposed of. (JASJIT SINGH BEDI) JUDGE

08.04.2024 JITESH Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No

Case details

Parties and counsel

CRM-M-58746-2023 -1- (214) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-58746-2023 Date of Decision: 08.04.2024 RANJODH SINGH @ JODHA ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF PUNJAB ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI Present: Mr. Sukhbir Maandi, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Ramta K Chaudhary, DAG, Punjab. ****

Source: High Court of Punjab and Haryana, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.