Abhay Mondal v. The State of West Bengal SLP
Case Details
CRM-M-11847-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 243 Surjit Singh State of Punjab CRM-M-11847-2025 Date of decision: 23.07.2025 Versus ....Petitioner ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate with Ms. Lishika Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in this 2nd petition filed under Section 483 of the
Facts
BNSS, 2023, is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.140 dated 04.12.2023 registered under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (in short ‘the NDPS Act’) at Police Station Division D, Police District Police Commissionerate, Amritsar, District Amritsar. The 1st petition filed by the petitioner seeking the same relief was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.08.2024. 1.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this 2nd petition, seeking regular bail to the petitioner, has been filed with the changed circumstances as similarly situated co-accused of the petitioner have been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble MOHD YAKUB 2025.07.23 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-11847-2025 2 Supreme Court in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023. 2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that a police party was on patrolling duty at Golbagh, Yatri Niwas Nagar Nigam and on the basis of a secret information the accused persons, namely, Prince Kumar @ Rajan and Baljinder Singh were apprehended with Tramadol sustained release tablets IP intoxicant tablets, marka Clovedol 100 SR lying in 29 boxes, each box has 60 strips, each strip has 10 intoxicant tablets (total 14500 intoxicant tablets in 29 boxes) and subsequently, FIR (supra) was registered. Thereafter, on the basis of disclosure statement made by co-accused, the petitioner has been nominated as an accused in the FIR (supra) 3.
Legal Reasoning
“20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused’s guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Having regard to these factors the court is of Antil supra). the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, MOHD YAKUB 2025.07.23 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-11847-2025 6 may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling.” (emphasis added) 9. A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI”, (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed: “6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, being charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a democracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually opposite to each other.” 10. In view of the above discussions, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner namely Surjit Singh is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate. MOHD YAKUB 2025.07.23 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-11847-2025 7 11. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE 23.07.2025 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No MOHD YAKUB 2025.07.23 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh
Arguments
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is not named in the FIR (supra). Admittedly, nothing has been recovered from the conscious and exclusive possession of the petitioner. The petitioner has been nominated as an accused in the present case on the basis of disclosure statement made by Akash during his custodial interrogation which has no evidentiary value in the eyes of law as the same is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Pursuance to the nomination of the petitioner, 500 tablets of Tramadol have been recovered from the petitioner, which does not fall under the ambit of commercial quantity, as such the embargo created under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, would not apply. He further submits that similarly situated co-accused, namely Sachin Kumar, has been granted MOHD YAKUB 2025.07.23 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-11847-2025 3 the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 27.03.2025 passed in CRM-M-16031-2025. Likewise, another co-accused, Yogesh Kumar @ Rinku, has also been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated 18.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-18786-2025. Furthermore, co-accused Baljinder Singh has also been extended the same concession vide order dated 16.07.2025 passed in CRM-M-25130- 2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and he is in custody since 06.12.2023. There are total 34 prosecution witnesses cited in the list of witnesses, out of which, 03 PWs have been examined till date and the trial is likely to take long time in conclusion. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel has filed custody certificate today in the Court which is taken on record and he opposes the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has played an active role in managing the drug money and he is instrumental in the cartelization of the drug syndicate, however, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last about 01 year 07 months. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court. Charges were framed and trial of the case MOHD YAKUB 2025.07.23 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-11847-2025 4 has not made much progress. Out of 34 prosecution witnesses, 03 PWs have been examined so far. 7. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal’s case (supra), released the accused on bail after completion of 18 months of custody on account of protracted trial in NDPS case involving commercial quantity of contraband. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Alius Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 000736/2024, Debrata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14970-2023, Santarul Islam @ Santa Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 13169/2023, Indrajit Mondal @ Piglu Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8512/2023, Narjul Islam @ Najbul Hoque Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14172/2023, Subhashri Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No.15284/2023, Mithun Sk. & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.016598/2023, SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin SK. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.003402/2024, Indadul Shah Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 12670/2023 , Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh Vs. Union of India, Ripon Seikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 16663/2023, Moidul Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl).No. 15668/ 2023, Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 2354/2024, Saddam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) MOHD YAKUB 2025.07.23 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Punjab & Haryana High Court at Chandigarh CRM-M-11847-2025 5 No. 15496/2023, Bijon SK @ Golam Murselim Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 6046/2024 and Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8823/2019. 8. Further, the culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner-accused. Keeping the petitioners in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of their rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR SC 1648, has held that the concept of fairness enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would trump the bar on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, has opined as follows: