1 1 CRM-M-21090- -2024 (O&M) 114+215 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB v. CRM-M-21090-2024
Case Details
1 1 CRM-M-21090- -2024 (O&M) 114+215 IN THE THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB NJAB AND HARYANA AT GARH CHANDIGARH Liyakat Ali Punjab State of Punjab versus CRM-M-21090-2024 (O&M) M) 2025 Date of decision: July 31, 2025 D ioner ….Petitioner dent ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUM SUMEET GOEL Present:- Mr. J.S. Moudgill, Advocate for t for the petitioner. Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG Pun G Punjab. SUMEET GO T GOEL, J. (ORAL) ***** 1. Present petition has been filed und de of led under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Proc l Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr. P.C il to r. P.C.’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner
Legal Reasoning
tioner in case bearing FIR No.120 da d for dated 06.12.2023, registered for the offences p nces punishable under Sections 22/61 and 22/61/85 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic S ropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short ‘ ation short ‘NDPS Act’), at Police Station Ghanaur, Distr r, District Patiala. 2. The gravamen of the FIR in ques an n question is that the petitioner is an accused of be of being involved in FIR pertaining 2000 ining to NDPS Act involving 2000 loose intoxican toxicant tablets, i.e., Tramadol Hydroc ydrochloride (766 grams). 3.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner ioner itioner has iterated that the petitioner is in custody s tody since 06.12.2023. Learned couns rther counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that d that the mandatory provisions of t been ns of the NDPS Act have not been MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-21090- -2024 (O&M) 2 2 complied with d with, and thus, the prosecution case fects. n case suffers from inherent defects. Learned couns counsel for the petitioner has iterate and iterated that the trial is delayed and the liability th thereof cannot be fastened upon t unsel upon the petitioner. Learned counsel has further ite her iterated that the petitioner has su more suffered incarceration for more than 01 year. T d for. year. Thus, regular bail is prayed for. 4. Learned State counsel has opp by s opposed the present petition by arguing that th that the allegations raised against the ature st the petitioner are serious in nature and, thus, he he does not deserve the concessio rned cession of the regular bail. Learned State counsel h unsel has further submitted that the in y the the instant bail plea is barred by the rigors of Sect f Section 37 of the NDPS Act, and o be , and thus, the same ought to be dismissed. Lea Learned State counsel seeks to plac icate to place on record custody certificate dated 30.07.20 2025 in Court, which is taken on r n on record. 5. I have heard counsel for the rival ough rival parties and have gone through the available re lable records of the case. 6. The petitioner was arrested after sted on 06.12.2023 whereinafter investigation w ation was carried out and challan was p Total was presented on 06.03.2024. Total 12 prosecution ecution witnesses have been cited and ined and only 03 have been examined till date. The The rival contentions raised at Bar ssues at Bar give rise to debatable issues shall be ratioc ratiocinated upon during the course s not course of trial. This Court does not deem it approp appropriate to delve deep into these r tage, these rival contentions, at this stage, lest it may pre ay prejudice the trial. Nothing tangibl rd to angible has been brought forward to indicate the li the likelihood of the petitioner abs ss of er absconding from the process of justice or inter r interfering with the prosecution evid n evidence. MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 3 3 CRM-M-21090- -2024 (O&M) 6.1. A perusal of the zimni orders pas ught rs passed by the trial Court, brought forth by the p the petitioner, indicates that the trial and e trial is indeed procrastinating and folly thereof ereof cannot be saddled upon the tody n the petitioner. As per custody certificate date te dated 30.07.2025 filed by the learne ioner learned State counsel, the petitioner has already su ady suffered incarceration for a period d 22 period of 01 year, 07 months and 22 days & is not not shown to be involved in any ot w of any other case/ FIR. In this view of the matter, th ter, the rigor imposed under Section tands ection 37 of the NDPS Act stands diluted in light n light of the Article 21 of the Constitu onstitution of India. 6.2. This Court in a judgment titled of titled as Kulwinder versus State of Punjab passed assed in CRM-M-64074-2024 (2025 lying (2025:PHHC:002695); after relying upon the ratio ratio decidendi of the judgments of rt in nts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hussainara Kh ara Khatoon vs. Home Secy., State of bdul ate of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81; Abdul Rehman Antu Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992) 1 S Nabi 2) 1 SCC 225; Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh vs. Sta vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 94; other, 2024(3) RCR (Criminal) 494; Mohd Muslim uslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of NSC T of Delhi) reported as 2023 INSC 311; Criminal riminal Appeal No.245/2020 dated hitta dated 07.02.2020 titled as “Chitta Biswas Alias Alias Subhas vs. The State of West y @ West Bengal”; “Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan vs. Th vs. The State of West Bengal”, Spe Crl.) l”, Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.5530-2022 2022 dated 22.08.2022 titled as “Mo aikh s “Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh vs. The State State of Gujarat”; Criminal App ated Appeal No.1169 of 2022 dated 05.08.2022 titl 22 titled as Gopal Krishna Patra @ G ndia, a @ Gopalrusma vs. Union of India, and Ankur C kur Chaudhary vs. State of Mad RCR Madhya Pradesh, 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 172 al) 172; has held, thus: MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-21090- -2024 (O&M) 4 4 The right to a speed “7.8. only a vital safeguard to pre incarceration; to mitigate anxiet the accusation as well as to c ability of an accused to defen overarching societal interest pavi right has been repeatedly actuat ratio decidendi of the above ju judgments have laid down a serie vistas of fundamental rights. T amalgamated into the Article 2 fu fundamental right to life and libe under our Constitution. The rig the actual restraint imposed at accused and consequent incarce stages, namely, the stage of inves and revision so that any possible to impermissible and avoidable commission of the offence til consummate into a finality, could early hearing and quick disposal ju jurisprudence. The overcrowde volume of work and the resultan indubitably and ju jurisprudential mechanism under this cannot be an excuse for ke hanging on the accused for an ind not serve any credit to the crim makes for a sad state of affairs. T is intended to avoid oppression a on the Court and the prosecution the trial with a reasonable dispa threefold purpose. Firstly, it p oppressive pre-trial imprisonme accused of the anxiety and publi criminal charges and lastly, it evidence will be lost or memori time, thus, impairing the abili himself. It goes without saying trial detention are grave. Accu p proven otherwise, are subjected deprivations of jail-life, usuall Equally important, the burden of frequently falls heavily on the inn fr not peedy and expeditious trial is not prevent undue and oppressive ive nxiety and concern accompanying ing the to curtail any impairment in the defend himself, but there is an an paving way for a speedy trial. This his the ctuated in the recent past and the ve-referred to Supreme Court’s rt’s series of decisions opening up new ew l is . The concept of speedy trial is the le 21 as an essential part of the liberty, guaranteed and preserved ved ith e right to speedy trial begins with the at the time of the arrest of the arceration which continues at all all eal investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal ue sible prejudice that may result due able delay since the time of the the ngs e till the criminal proceedings ial, ould be averted. The speedy trial, osal are sine qua non of criminal nal wded Court-dockets, the heavy avy ion ultant pressure on the prosecution the entire criminal nal bly keeps nder stress and strain. However, er, les r keeping the sword of Damocles n indefinite period of time. It does oes criminal justice system, rather it r it ial irs. The guarantee of a speedy trial ion and prevent delay by imposing ing tion an obligation to proceed with ith s a dispatch. The guarantee serves a it protects the accused against nst nment; secondly, it relieves the the ved ublic suspicion due to unresolved , it protects against the risk that hat mories dimmed by the passage of of nd ability of the accused to defend - ing that the consequences of pre- Accused, presumed innocent, till till cal ted to psychological and physical ns. ually under onerous conditions. sed n of detention of such an accused innocent members of his family. the Police, MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment CRM-M-21090- -2024 (O&M) 5 5 There is yet anothe deserves consideration at this s p present case relate to accused bei to commercial quantity of contr 1985. While considering a bai commercial quantity, the Court h enumerated under Section 37 mandates that Courts can grant hearing the public prosecutor and twin conditions which are reas that the accused is not guilty of th that, he is not likely to commit a stringent rigours of Section 37 o meticulously scrutinized agains fu fundamental right to a speedy p personal liberty cannot be rende delays in the judicial process, pa is neither attributable to the accu the prosecution by cogent reasons behind bars for an inordinate per rigours laid down in Section 37 legislature in its wisdom, in orde disposal of the cases under th constitution of special Courts un However, this Court cannot turn delays and systematic inefficienc purpose. A Court of law is duty p in vi not become complicit fundamental rights, notwithstand fu statute. While dealing with bail the rigours of Section 37 of the N strike a judicious balance betwee the menace of drugs and the sacr a fair and expeditious trial. Pro justifiable cause, risks transfor ju p punitive imprisonment, an outcom of justice and equity. ich other aspect of the matter which his stage. The allegations in the the d being involved in an FIR relating ing ct, contraband under the NDPS Act, bail petition in a case involving ing urt has to keep in mind the rigours urs ich 37 of NDPS Act, 1985 which rant bail to an accused only after fter r and after having satisfied itself of f of ing reasonable grounds for believing nd of the offence charged/alleged and it any offence while on bail. The he be 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 must be d’s ainst the backdrop of accused’s edy trial. The right to life and nd ted endered nugatory by unwarranted (s) s, particularly where such delay(s) accused nor justified at the end of of ept sons. An individual cannot be kept in e period of time by taking refuge in 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The he order to ensure speedy and timely ely the r the Act, has provided for the ts under Section 36-A of the Act. ct. turn Nelson’s eye to the protracted ted ive iency that frustrate this legislative duty-bound to ensure that it does oes individual’s l’s violation of an a standing anything contained in a bail petition in a case governed by by he NDPS Act, 1985, the Court must ust urb tween the legislative intent to curb sacrosanct right of the accused to to Prolonged incarceration, without out nto sforming pre-trial detention into ple tcome antithetical to the principle Ergo, the unequivoc trial has failed to conclude withi in prolonged incarceration, it m fundamental rights of life and l fu and, as such, conditional libe embargo created under Section 3 to be considered as per facts of grant of bail in a case pertainin the ivocal inference is that where the ithin a reasonable time, resulting ing ous it militates against the precious aw nd liberty granted under the law liberty overriding the statutory ory ght on 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 ought ds, s of a given case. In other words, on aining to commercial quantity, on MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 6 6 CRM-M-21090- -2024 (O&M) the ground of undue delay in tri by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 19 red trial, cannot be said to be fettered ct, 1985.” Suffice to say, further detenti s an detention of the petitioner as an undertrial is no al is not warranted in the facts and circ nd circumstances of the case. 7. In view of above, the present pe er is ent petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be to be released on regular bail on his f ds to n his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction faction of the Ld. concerned trial Cou ever, ial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, in addition to tion to conditions that may be imp trial imposed by the concerned trial Court/Duty M uty Magistrate, the petitioner shall re wing hall remain bound by the following conditions: The petitioner shall not mis (i) (ii) The petitioner shall not tam documentary, during the tri (iii) The petitioner shall not abs ot mis-use the liberty granted. al or ot tamper with any evidence, oral or the trial. efore ot absent himself on any date before the trial. (iv) The petitioner shall not c e on not commit any offence while on bail. (v) The petitioner shall deposi h the deposit his passport, if any, with the trial Court. (vi) The petitioner shall give Investigating Officer/SHO and shall not change his ce permission of the trial Cour (vii) The petitioner shall not in the give his cellphone number to the r/SHO of concerned Police Station ation prior his cell-phone number without prior l Court/Illaqa Magistrate. y the not in any manner try to delay the trial. (viii) The petitioner shall submi every month, an affidavi Court, to the effect that commission of any offence In case the petitioner is offence after his being en FIR, on the basis of his affi mandated to move, forthwi which plea, but of course merits thereof. y of submit, on the first working day of fidavit, before the concerned trial trial that he has not been involved in d in bail. offence after being released on bail. any er is found to be involved in any ing enlarged on bail in the present esent ate is his affidavit or otherwise, the State is bail orthwith, for cancellation of his bail upon course, shall be ratiocinated upon MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment 7 7 CRM-M-21090- -2024 (O&M) 8. In case of breach of any of the a those f the aforesaid conditions and those which may be ay be imposed by concerned trial Cou ected al Court/Duty Magistrate as directed hereinabove ove or upon showing any o ny other sufficient cause, the the State/complain mplainant shall be at liberty to mov f the o move cancellation of bail of the petitioner. 9. 10. Ordered accordingly. Nothing said hereinabove shall be on of hall be construed as an expression of opinion on the on the merits of the case. 11. Since the main case has been de eous een decided, pending miscellaneous application, if ion, if any, shall also stands disposed o osed off. (SUMEET GOEL) JUDGE 2025 July 31, 2025 mahavir Whether speakin peaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportab eportable: Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2025.07.31 19:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment