Pargat Singh v. State of Punjab

IN THE HI

AT C

PARGAT SINGH

STATE OF HARYA CORAM: HON'BL Present:Mr. Gurpal

Mr. Adesh P

**** ANOOP CHITKAR FIR No. Dat

09.0

¶1The petition under Section 439 o

¶2In paragraph reply and the custod

¶3The facts and based on secret inf driven by Daljit Sin 250 grams of popp 9799. The Investig NDPS Act, 1985, an

¶4Counsel for th been falsely implica is granted petitione intermediate quantit further submits that

GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-51085-202

Reserved on : 09.0

Pronounced on: 29

...PE

VERSUS

ANA

...RE LE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITK Singh Sandhu, Advocate for the petiti Pal Singh, AAG, Punjab.

RA, J. ted Police Station

08.2022 Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, District Sri Muktsar Sahib ner incarcerated in the FIR captioned of Cr.P.C, seeking regular bail. 11 of the bail petition, the accused d dy certificate do not contradict it. d allegations are taken from the reply formation, the Police seized 300 kg ngh @ Laddu and petitioner who is ow py husk was recovered during the se ator claims to have complied with a nd CrPC, 1973. he petitioner submits that the petition ated in the present FIR. On instruction er shall not indulge himself in the o ty or the offence which falls under S t if the petitioner involves himself in t

ARYANA

4.2025

9.04.2025

ETITIONER ESPONDENT KARA ioner.

Sections 15(c ) (A) of NDPS Act, 1985 above had come up before this Court declares no criminal antecedents.The y filed by the State. On 09.08.2022, of poppy husk from the truck being wner was sitting on the next seat and earch of another Truck No. PB-30N-all the statutory requirements of the ner is an innocent person and he has ns, he further submits that in case bail offence involving the commercial or Sections 19/24/27A of NDPS Act. He the said offences, he has no objection

t e , g d - e s l r e n

if the State files app trial incarceration w

¶5The State's co

¶6The petition REASONING:

¶7The quantity 37 of the NDPS Ac put in place by the L

¶8However, th bail on prolonged cu 1) In Shince MANU/SCO [2]. The private

138.750 was pro The pet

11.04.20 on a pe Court ca to the p applied petitione on 14.08

09.10.20

11.10.20 applicat dated 09 [3]. We material [4]. It m declinin quantity and as s query, it from th difficult consider [5]. Be period f order pa

plication for cancellation of his bail. would cause an irreversible injustice to ounsel opposes bail and refers to the re er seeks bail on pre-trial custody of m y allegedly involved in this case is co ct apply in the present case. The petiti Legislature under Section 37 of the ND he petitioner is entitled to bail because ustody in the following judicial preced Babu v. The State of Kera OR/27340/2024, Hon'ble Supreme Co e prosecution case is that Accused N bus from Cherthala to Arookutty 0 gms, was recovered from his consci ocured by Accused No.1 with the hel titioner is nominated as Accused No

¶022The petitioner was granted bail b etition filed by the State of Kerala, ancelled the petitioner's bail on 13.06 petitioner to apply afresh before the for bail but his prayer was declined b er approached the High Court but his

8.2023. His second bail application w

¶023Meanwhile, Accused No.2 was

¶023Seeking parity with the co-acc tion, which has been rejected by the

9.11.2023. e have heard learned counsel for th l placed on record. may be seen from para 6 of the impug ng bail to the petitioner, was largely y of contraband, which falls in the cat such, the rigors of Section 37 of the N t is not disputed by learned State coun he conscious possession of the peti t for us to apply the twin test of S ring the petitioner's prayer for bail. that as it may, the petitioner is in cus from 20.09.2022 to 27.06.2023 when assed by the Trial Court/Sessions Cour

He further contends that further pre-o the petitioner and their family. eply. more than one year and six months. mmercial. Given this, the rigors of S. ioner must satisfy the twin conditions DPS Act. e Hon'ble Supreme Court had granted dents: ala, decided on 21 Feb 2024, ourt holds, No.1 (Liju) was found travelling in a and contraband MDMA, weighing ious possession. The said contraband lp of Accused No.2 from Bangalore. o.4 in the crime. He was arrested on by the Trial Court on 20.09.2022 but challenging the bail order, the High

6.2023. However, liberty was granted Sessions Court. The petitioner again by the Trial Court on 07.07.2023. The s first bail application was dismissed was turned down by the High Court on granted bail by the High Court on used, thepetitioner moved third bail High Court vide the impugned order he parties and carefully perused the gned order that the High Court, while y influenced by the fact that a huge egory of 'commercial', was recovered NDPS Act are attracted. On a specific nsel that no contraband was recovered itioner. In such circumstances, it is Section 37 of the NDPS Act while stody since 11.04.2022 except for the n he remained on bail pursuant to the rt.

- . s d , a g d . n t h d n e d n n l r e e e d c d s e e e

[6]. It se some r bail/defa petitione [7]. Tak expressi petitione [8]. The furnishin [9]. The date of granted 2) In Sohrab K 7115-2024, H The pet 8/22 an applicat year an possessi grams. Conside facts an made ou Accordi terms an 3) In Ramlal v wherein Hon months of cu follows:

The pet punishab Substan them. T Hence, months Heard le service i for the S Conside petitione made ou 4) In Sabat Me 8557-2024, H

eems that the investigation is complet easonable time. The petitioner's c ault bail. As per the record, there er. king into consideration all the at ing any views on the merits of the cas er. e petitioner is, accordingly, directed t ng bail bonds to the satisfaction of the e petitioner shall remain present befo hearing, failing which it shall be tak to him today by this Court. Khan v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Hon'ble Supreme Cort holds, titioner is an accused for the alleged nd 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Ps tion was dismissed by the High Court. nd four months in jail. The petitio ion of 80 grams of MD powder each ering the fact that the petitioner has n nd circumstances of this case, we are ut for the petitioner and therefore, the ingly, the petitioner is directed to be re nd conditions to be decided by the con v. The State of Rajasthan, decided on n'ble Supreme Court granted bail to ustody who was possessing 450 gram titioner and the other accused per ble under Sections 8/21 & 8/29 of t nces Act and allegation is that 450 gra The bail application of the petitioner he approached this Court. He has al in jail. earned counsel for the petitioner. As p is deemed complete on the sole respo State. ering the period of incarceration of er has no criminal antecedents, we ar ut for the petitioner. htab Khan v. The State of Maharashtr Hon'ble Supreme Court holds,

te and the conclusion of trial will take co-accused are already on regular are no criminal antecedents of the ttending circumstances but without se, we are inclined to grant bail to the to be enlarged on bail subject to his e Trial Court. re the Trial Court on each and every ken as a misuse of concession of bail , decided on 13 Aug 2024, SLP (Crl.) d offences punishable under Sections ychotropic Substances Act. His bail . He has already undergone about one oner and coaccused were found in h of which commercial quantity is 50 no criminal antecedents and the entire e of the opinion that a case of bail is prayer of the petitioner is allowed. eleased on bail forthwith on the usual ncerned Court. n 17 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl) 9510-2024, a first offender afterone year and six ms of smack (Heroin), and the holds as rsons are accused for the offences the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic am of smack has been recovered from r was dismissed by the High Court. ready undergone about 1 year and 6 per office report dated 13.09.2024, the ondent-State but no one has appeared the petitioner and the fact that the re of the opinion that a case of bail is ra, decided on 03 Sep 2024, SLP (Crl)

e r e t e s y l ) s l e n e s l , x s s c m . e d e s )

The peti 29 of th that 275 bail app 1 year si Heard le Conside incarcer petitione 5) In Md. T

(Crl) 122 [2]. The conduct arrested [4]. It is trial has Howeve prosecut [5]. It m has dire thereto, last 2/3 reasonab already the petit [6]. Tak fact that that the this stag 6) Bhola Shika 13236-2024 In conn Station-Drugs a petitione were fou Heard le appearin It is sub already In the sa custody petition subject Ordered

¶9Per the custo months and 20 days

itioner is an accused for the offences he of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotr 5 gms. and 50.01 gms of heroine has b plication was dismissed by the High C ix months in jail. earned senior counsel/counsel for the p ering the quantity of the contraba ration, we are of the opinion that a er. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West B 225-2024, Hon'ble Supreme Court ho e allegations are that upon receipt ed a raid in which the petitioner an and 4 kgs., 920 gms of opium latex w s not in dispute that after filing of cha s commenced but only examination-in er, there are 12 witnesses, who are tion. may be mentioned that the High Court ected for conclusion of trial within o the trial has notbeen expedited as no dates. That being so, the conclus ble time. The petitioner does not hav spent one year and six months in cus tioner will not serve any useful purpos king into consideration the period spen t the petitioner does not have any cr conditions prescribed under Section 3 ge. ari v. The State of Chhattisgarh, d , Hon'ble Supreme Court holds, ection with FIR No. 150 of 2024 da Sipat, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh and Psychotropic Substances Act, er was arrested on 10.03.2024, as th und in joint possession of 21 Kgs of G earned counsel appearing for the pet ng for the respondent-State. bmitted by the learned counsel appear filed and thereafter, the Court has also aid circumstances and taking note of t since 10.03.2024, we are of the con can be disposed of ordering that the to the stringent terms and condition d accordingly. ody certificate dated 08.04.2025, the p s in this FIR.

punishable under Sections 21(c) and ropic Substances Act and allegation is been recovered from him. His regular Court. He has already undergone about parties. and articles and the period of his a case of bail is made out for the Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP olds, of a secret information, the police nd the co-accused Rabiul Alam were was seized. argesheet and framing of charges, the n-chief of P.W.1 has been completed. e proposed to be examined by the t while declining bail to the petitioner ne year. But it seems that regardless o effective hearing took place for the sion of trial is likely to take some ve any criminal antecedents. He has stody. The continued incarceration of se. nt by the petitioner in custody and the riminal antecedents, we are satisfied 37 of the NDPS Act can be relaxed at decided on 11-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) ated 10.03.2024, registered at Police h under Section 20(b) of the Narcotic 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act'), the he petitioner along with three others Ganja. titioner and also the learned counsel ring for the State that final report was o framed the charges against them. the fact that the petitioner has been in nsidered view that this special leave e petitioner shall be released on bail, ns to be imposed by the Trial Court. petitioner is in custody for 01 year 05

d s r t s e P e e e . e r s e e s f e d t ) e c e s l s n e , .

¶10The prolong right guaranteed un liberty must overrid Act1.

¶11In Tajmul S Hon'ble Supreme C [5]. We to speed under in though, have bee time. Th [6]. Acc subject t

¶12Given the a precedents mention Constitution of Indi

¶13Considering Act would not be at denying the rigors o

¶14Given the p primafacie analysis would be no justifia

¶15Without com this case, and for th shall come into forc CONDITIONS:

1Supreme Court of Indi July 2023

ged incarceration, generally militates a nder Article 21 of the Constitution an de the statutory embargo created und K v. The State of West Bengal, decid Court holds, are inclined to set aside the impugned dy trial is a fundamental right. Despit ncarceration for more than one and it is submitted by learned counsel en framed. Suffice it is to state that tr here is no antecedent involving the app cordingly, the impugned order is set a to the conditions that may be imposed above, the petitioner's pretrial custod ned above; the petitioner is entitle a. the quantity involved and the pre-tr ttracted. Given this, the criminal antec of S. 37 of the NDPS Act at this stage. penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz of the nature of allegations and the ot ability further pre-trial incarceration at mmenting on the case's merits, in the e reasons mentioned above, the petitio ce from the time it is uploaded on this

ia, in Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, S

against the most precious fundamental nd in such a situation, the conditional der Section 37(1)(b)(ii) of the NDPS ded on 23 Jul 2024, CrA 3047-2024, d order only on the premise that right te the fact that the appellant has been a half years, the trial is yet to start, appearing for the State that charges rial would take considerable length of pellant. side and the appellant is granted bail, d by the Trial Court. dy is more than some of the judicial ed to bail under Article 14 of the rial custody, Section 37 of the NDPS cedents are also not a legal ground for

pre-trial custody, coupled with the ther factors peculiar to this case, there t this stage. e facts and circumstances peculiar to oner makes a case for bail. This order Court's official webpage. SLP (Crl) 4169-2023, Para 4, decided on 13

l l S , t n , s f , l e S r e e o r

¶16Given above shall be released o satisfaction of the Magistrate/duty Ma that if the accused fa

¶17While furnis identification details

1. AADH

¶2Passpor officer/ accused

¶3Mobile

¶4E-Mail

¶18This order is

¶19The petition concerned Court(s) browbeat, pressuriz officials, or any ot dissuade them from

¶20Given the b protect the member of the primary op Consequently, it wo being imposed base of certainty, i.e., be intermediate sancti peculiar to this case any, along with the prison and inform t Act, 1959, the petiti case, provided othe

e, provided the petitioner is not requ on bail in the FIR captioned above concerned Court and due to unav agistrate. Before accepting the surety, t fails to appear, such surety can produc shing a personal bond, the petitioner s: HAR number rt number (If available) and when the a /court considers it appropriate or consid d a flight risk. e number (If available) l id (If available) s subject to the petitioner's complying ner shall abide by all statutory bon on all dates. The petitioner shall not e, induce, threaten, or promise, direct ther person acquainted with the fact disclosing such facts to the Police or background of allegations against the rs of society, detection squad and inca tions until the filing of the closur ould be appropriate to restrict the poss ed on the preponderance of the eviden eyond a reasonable doubt; and as su on]. Given the nature of the alleg e, the petitioner shall surrender all w arms license to the concerned authori the Investigator of the compliance. H ioner shall be entitled to renew and re erwise permissible under the concern

uired in any other case, the petitioner subject to furnishing bonds to the vailability before any nearest Ilaqa the concerned Court must be satisfied e the accused. shall mention the following personal

attesting ders the

g with the following terms. nd conditions and appear before the tamper with the evidence, influence, tly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police ts and circumstances of the case or the Court. e petitioner, it becomes paramount to apacitating the accused would be one re report or discharge, or acquittal. session of firearms. [Thisrestriction is nce of probability and not of evidence uch, it is not to be construed as an gations and the other circumstances eapons, firearms, and ammunition, if ity within fifteen days of release from However, subject to the Indian Arms claim them in case of acquittal in this ned rules. Restricting firearms would

r e a d l e , e r o e . s e n s f m s s d

instill confidence i accused from influe

¶21The conditio ensure the accused Mohammed Zubair (Criminal) No 279 Hon'ble Supreme C have a nexus to th purpose of imposing of the accused and t the deprivation of ri

¶22In Md. Tajiu

(Crl) 12225-2024, H petitioner is found him today will liab consequences."

¶23This bail is indulges in any non this bail before the

¶24Any observa merits nor shall the

¶25A certified Advocate for the Pe web page of this Co authenticity, such a downloaded copy fo

in the victim(s), their families, and encing the witnesses and repeating the ons mentioned above imposed by this does not repeat the offense and also t r v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July Court holds that "The bail conditions he purpose that they seek to serve b g them. The courts, while imposing ba the necessity of a fair trial. While doi ights and liberties must be eschewed." ur Rahaman v. The State of West Be Hon'ble Supreme Court holds in Para involved in such like offence in futu ble to be withdrawn and the petitio s conditional, and the foundational n-bailable offense, the State shall fil Trial Court, which shall be at liberty ation made hereinabove is neither an trial Court advert to these comments. copy of this order would not be ne etitioner can download this order alo ourt and attest it to be a true copy. If th an officer can also verify its authenti or attesting bonds.

d society; it would also restrain the offense. s court are to endeavor to reform and to block the menace of drug abuse. In :INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition y 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of imposed by the Court must not only but must also be proportional to the ail conditions must balance the liberty ing so, conditions that would result in " engal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP a 7, "It goes without saying that if the ure, the concession of bail granted to oner is bound to face the necessary l condition is that if the petitioner le an application for cancellation of y to cancel this bail. n expression of opinion on the case's eeded for furnishing bonds, and any ong with case status from the official he attesting officer wants to verify its icity and may download and use the

e d n n f y e y n P e o y r f s y l s e

¶26Petition allo disposed of.

29.04.2025 renubala

Whether spe

Whether rep

owed in terms mentioned above. Al

(ANO

eaking/reasoned: Yes/No portable:

ll pending applications, if any, stand OOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

d