Veerpal Singh v. CORAM
Case Details
CRM-M No.26837 of 2025 (cid:1) 251 THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.26837 of 2025 Date of Decision: 21.05.2025 Veerpal Singh ..... Petitioner State of Punjab Versus CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ ..... Respondent Present: ***
Legal Reasoning
reasonably satisfied on a prima facie look at the material on record (whenever the bail application is made) that the accused is not guilty. Any other interpretation, would result in complete denial of the bail to a person accused of offences such as those enacted under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. xxxxxx xxxxxxx 21 .....it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. xxxxx xxxxxx 23. There is a further danger of the prisoner turning to crime, “as crime not only turns admirable, but the more professional the crime, more honour is paid to the criminal”22 (also see Donald Clemmer’s ‘The Prison Community’ published in 194023). Incarceration has further deleterious effects - where the accused belongs to the weakest economic strata: immediate loss of livelihood, and in several cases, scattering of families as well as loss of family bonds and alienation from society. The courts therefore, have to be sensitive to these aspects (because in the event of an acquittal, the loss to the accused is irreparable), and ensure that trials – especially in cases, where special laws enact stringent provisions, are taken up and concluded speedily.' POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.21 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.26837 of 2025 (cid:5) 8. The veracity of the allegations would be assessed only after the conclusion of the trial and on the appreciation of evidence to be led by both the parties before the trial Court. 9. This Court would refrain itself from commenting anything on the merits of the case. Keeping in view the arguments raised by both the sides and perusing the record, the Court is of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner succeeds in making out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 21.05.2025 ps-I (RAJESH BHARDWAJ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable : : Yes/No Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.21 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Arguments
Mr. R.S. Dhillon, Advocate for Mr. G. P. S. Ghuman, Advocate and Mr. G. S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Raj Karan Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. *** RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J. (ORAL) 1. Present petition has been filed praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.179, dated 25.09.2023, under Sections 21/25/29/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act (for short ‘NDPS Act’), 1985, registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar (Rural), Punjab (Annexure P-1). 2. Succinctly the facts of the case are that the police party while on patrolling on 25.09.2023, saw two youngsters riding the Mojesto Moped. SI signalled them to stop. On seeing the police, they got perplexed and tried to turn back, however the police party nabbed both of them. On asking, the driver of Moped disclosed his name as Veerpal Singh @ Veeru i.e. the petitioner whereas the second person riding pillion, disclosed his name as Parkash Masih @ Akash. On suspicion, they were given the offer to be searched and on conducting the search of POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.21 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.26837 of 2025 (cid:2) the dickey of Moped, 500 grams of heroin was recovered wrapped in black polythene bag. They failed to produce any licence regarding the conscious possession of the same and thus the FIR was registered and both were arrested on the spot. The investigation commenced and the samples taken were sent to the FSL. On conclusion of the investigation, the challan was presented and the learned trial Court on framing the charges, proceeded with the trial. The petitioner approached the Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar praying for the grant of bail. However, after hearing both the sides finding no merit in the same, the learned Judge, Special Court, Amritsar declined the petition filed by the petitioner vide his order dated 29.03.2025. Hence being aggrieved the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition praying for the grant of regular bail. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner has been falsely and frivolously implicated in the present case. He has submitted that the alleged recovery has been made in a public place, however there is no independent witness joined while effecting the recovery. He has further submitted that there is a violation of mandatory provisions of Section 50 of NDPS Act as the offer given is totally against the law settled. He has submitted that though the alleged recovery falls under the commercial quantity, however the petitioner is behind bars since the date of his arrest i.e. 25.09.2023. He has drawn the attention of this Court to order dated 20.03.2025 passed in CRM-M- 30418-2024, whereby co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Parkash Masih @ Akash, has been granted bail. He has submitted that till date there is no material progress in the trial. He has thus submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail. POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.21 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.26837 of 2025 (cid:3) 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He, on instructions, has submitted that the recovery of 500 grams of heroin, which is commercial in nature, has been effected from the dickey of the moped on which the petitioner was driving and thus, the provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act, are attracted. He has submitted that there is no violation of compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act. He has produced custody certificate of the petitioner today in the Court and has submitted that out of 11 prosecution witnesses, only 03 have been examined till date. 5. 6. Heard. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is deciphered that the petitioner was arrested on 25.09.2023. The recovery of 500 grams of heroin has been effected from the dickey of moped. As per the submissions, out of total 11 prosecution witnesses, only 03 witnesses have been examined till date. The alleged recovery of contraband is 500 grams of heroin that falls under the commercial quantity. Co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Parkash Masih @ Akash, has been granted bail vide order dated 20.03.2025 passed by this Court. Custody certificate would reflect that the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year, 07 months and 21 days as on 20.05.2025. Custody certificate further reflects that the petitioner is involved in one more case, however, he has been acquitted in the said case. Needless to say that every accused has a fundamental right of speedy trial. 7. (cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:12)(cid:5)(cid:14)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7)(cid:10)(cid:9)(cid:9)(cid:4)(cid:14) (cid:6)by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 Live Law (SC)260, this Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is POOJA SHARMA 2025.05.21 19:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.26837 of 2025 (cid:4) covered by the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the abovesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court expressed its views as under:- 19. A plain and literal interpretation of the conditions under Section 37 (i.e., that Court should be satisfied that the accused is not guilty and would not commit any offence) would effectively exclude grant of bail altogether, resulting in punitive detention and unsanctioned preventive detention as well. Therefore, the only manner in which such special conditions as enacted under Section 37 can be considered within constitutional parameters is where the court is