Karandeep Singh v. State of Punjab
Case Details
CRM-M-65109-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-65109-2024 Reserved on: 02.05.2025 Pronounced on: 12.05.2025 Karan Singh @ Karandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA Present:
Legal Reasoning
Mr. B.S. Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Jasdev Singh Thind, D.A.G., Punjab. **** ANOOP CHITKARA, J. FIR No. 237 Dated 20.11.2023 Police Station Ranjit District Amritsar Avenue, Sections 21(c) and 29 of NDPS Act and 411, 473 IPC 1. The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail. 2. In paragraph 15 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents. 3. The facts and allegations are taken from the status report filed by the State. On 20.11.2023, based on chance recovery, the Police seized 400 grams of Heroin from possession of co-accused, however petitioner succeeded to run away from the spot. The Investigator claims to have complied with all the statutory requirements of the NDPS Act, 1985, and CrPC, 1973. 4. The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family. He further seeks bail on the grounds of parity with co-accused Kalu who has already been granted the benefit of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 27.02.2025 passed in CRM-M No.5805 of 2025. 5. 6. The State’s counsel opposes bail and refers to the status report. It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the status report, which read as follows: Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.12 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh “15. That it is submitted that the present petitioner Karan Singh @ 1 CRM-M-65109-2024 Karandeep Singh along with co-accused Major Singh and Kallu Singh by riding on two motorcycles HD Deluxe having same number plate bearing No. PB14-D-7021 had come to Amritsar City for supply of heroin. The co-accused Major Singh and Kallu Singh were apprehended at the spot, whereas, the present petitioner Karan Singh @ Karandeep Singh had managed to run away from the spot after leaving the motorcycle at the spot, which was later on found to be a stolen motorcycle.” 7. The quantity allegedly involved in this case is commercial. Given this, the rigors of S. 37 of the NDPS Act apply in the present case. The petitioner must satisfy the twin conditions put in place by the Legislature under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 8. Petitioner is not connected with the contraband and nothing has been recovered from his possession. The main allegation against the petitioner is that he was accompanying the main accused on a stolen motorcycle with fake number plate and going to supply contraband. Co-accused Kalu has already been released on bail and petitioner’s case is on better footing. 9. As per paragraph 2 of the bail petition, the petitioner has been in custody since 20.11.2023. Per the custody certificate dated 01.05.2025, the petitioner’s total custody in this FIR is 01 year, 04 months and 21 days. Given the penal provisions invoked viz-a-viz pre-trial custody, coupled with the primafacie analysis of the nature of allegations, co- accused already granted bail and the other factors peculiar to this case, there would be no justifiability further pre-trial incarceration at this stage. 10. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail. This order shall come into force from the time it is uploaded on this Court's official webpage. 11. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Court and due to unavailability before any nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned Court must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear, such surety can produce the accused. 12. While furnishing a personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number (If available) and when the attesting officer/court considers it appropriate or considers the accused a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 2 Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.12 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh CRM-M-65109-2024 13. This order is subject to the petitioner’s complying with the following terms. 14. The petitioner shall abide by all statutory bond conditions and appear before the concerned Court(s) on all dates. The petitioner shall not tamper with the evidence, influence, browbeat, pressurize, induce, threaten, or promise, directly or indirectly, any witnesses, Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case or dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police or the Court. 15. Given the background of allegations against the petitioner, it becomes paramount to protect the detection squad, members of society, and incapacitating the accused would be one of the primary options until the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acquittal. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearms. [This restriction is being imposed based on the preponderance of the evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond a reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanction]. Given the nature of the allegations and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the petitioner shall surrender all weapons, firearms, and ammunition, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fifteen days of release from prison and inform the Investigator of the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the petitioner shall be entitled to renew and reclaim them in case of acquittal in this case, provided otherwise permissible under the concerned rules. Restricting firearms would instill confidence in the victim(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repeating the offense. 16. The conditions mentioned above imposed by this court are to endeavor to reform and ensure the accused does not repeat the offense and also to block the menace of drug abuse. In Mohammed Zubair v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2022:INSC:735 [Para 28], Writ Petition (Criminal) No 279 of 2022, Para 29, decided on July 20, 2022, A Three-Judge bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court holds that “The bail conditions imposed by the Court must not only have a nexus to the purpose that they seek to serve but must also be proportional to the purpose of imposing them. The courts, while imposing bail conditions must balance the liberty of the accused and the necessity of a fair trial. While doing so, conditions that would result in the deprivation of rights and liberties must be eschewed.” 17. In Md. Tajiur Rahaman v. The State of West Bengal, decided on 08-Nov-2024, SLP (Crl) 12225-2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court holds in Para 7, “It goes without saying that if the petitioner is found involved in such like offence in future, the concession of bail granted to him today will liable to be withdrawn and the petitioner is bound to face the necessary consequences.” Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.12 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 3 CRM-M-65109-2024 18. This bail is conditional, and the foundational condition is that if the petitioner indulges in any non-bailable offense, the State may file an application for cancellation of this bail before the Trial Court, which shall be at liberty to cancel this bail. 19. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 20. A certified copy of this order would not be needed for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioner can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. If the attesting officer wants to verify its authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. 21. Petition allowed in terms mentioned above. All pending applications, if any,
Decision
stand disposed of. 12.05.2025 Jyoti Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes No. Whether reportable: (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE Jyoti Sharma 2025.05.12 17:15 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment High Court, Sector 1, Chandigarh 4