Allowed

Tanveer Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Apr 2022CRM-M/54631/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petitioner's bail petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. citing long incarceration and delayed trials due to witness summoning issues, ordering release without commenting on case merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.

Tanveer Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2022)

¶1

�

¶2

CRM-M No.54631 of 2021(O&M)

¶3

250

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M No.54631 of 2021(O&M) Date of Decision: 19.04.2022

Tanveer Singh

......Petitioner

State of Punjab

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH

¶12

Present:Mr. S.S. Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. C.L. Pawar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. ****

¶14

RAJ MOHAN SINGH, J.(Oral)

¶15

Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in his third attempt in case bearing FIR No.16 dated 04.02.2019 registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur.

¶16

CRM-M No.34097 of 2019 was got dismissed as withdrawn on 22.01.2020. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CRM-M No.37739 of 2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 06.09.2021, however, it was directed that the trial Court shall make every endeavour to conclude the trial within reasonable time.

¶17

PRINCE SAINI 2022.04.19 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M No.54631 of 2021(O&M) �

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 3 years, 2 months and 11 days as on 18.04.2022 and as per custody certificate, he is not involved in any other case except the present case. Learned counsel refers to CRM-M No.20566 of 2019 titled Veeru Vs. State of Punjab decided on 19.11.2019, CRM-M No.41779 of 2020 titled Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 17.12.2020, CRM-M No.17481 of 2020 titled Mani Singh @ Maddi Vs. State of Punjab decided on 22.07.2020, CRM-M No.25382 of 2020 titled Gurbaksh Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 02.09.2020 and submits that by virtue of long incarceration of the petitioner, petitioner is entitled for regular bail de hors the nature of quantity.

¶20

Learned counsel further refers to the interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court from 09.09.2021 onwards to contend that instead of making necessary endeavour to conclude the trial at the earliest, the trial Court has unnecessarily accommodated the prosecution witnesses, despite service of bailable warrants and by issuing repeated bailable warrants to the witnesses. Orders dated 09.09.2021, 30.09.2021, 21.10.2021, 11.11.2021 and 01.12.2021 are reproduced hereasunder:-

¶21

“File put up before me, as learned Presiding

¶22

PRINCE SAINI 2022.04.19 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶23

�

¶24

CRM-M No.54631 of 2021(O&M)

¶25

Officer is on leave for today.

¶26

Both accused Raja @ Bittu and Tanvir Singh have not been produced by the jail authority through VC from Security Jail, Nabha and Central Jail, Bathinda. Let, production warrants of both accused be issued for 30.09.2021 with the direction to produce them through V.C.

¶27

Case is adjourned to 30.09.2021 for purpose already fixed, as per previous order.

¶28

(Sham Lal) I/c. ASJ, Sangrur 09.09.2021”

¶29

“Both accused Raja @ Bittu and Tanvir Singh have been produced by the jail authority through VC from Security Jail, Nabha and Central Jail, Bathinda. Let, they be again produced on 21.10.2021 through VC.

¶30

PW-6 ASI Suresh Kumar has been examined today. No other PW is present. Summons issued to SI Darshan Singh and L/C Sukhveer Kaur received back duly served. They have failed to come present in the Court. Let, they be summoned through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.10,000/- each with one surety in the like amount for 21.10.2021.

¶31

(Baljinder Singh) JSC, Sangrur, (UID No.PB0107) Date 30.09.2021”

¶32

PRINCE SAINI 2022.04.19 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶33

CRM-M No.54631 of 2021(O&M) �

¶34

“ Both accused Raja @ Bittu and Tanvir Singh have been produced by the jail authority through V.C from Security Jail, Nabha and Central Jail, Bathinda. Let, they be again produced on 11.11.2021 through V.C.

¶35

PW-7-L/SC Sukhbir Kaur has been examined today. No other PW is present. Let, witnesses at serial No.3 and 17 be summoned for 11.11.2021.

¶36

(Baljinder Singh) JSC, Sangrur, (UID No.PB0107) Date :21.10.2021”

¶37

“Both accused Raja @ Bittu and Tanvir Singh have been produced by the jail authority through V.C from Security Jail, Nabha and Central Jail Bathinda. Let, they be again produced on 01.12.2021 through V.C.

¶38

Summons issued to SI Darshan Singh received back duly served. He has failed to come present in the Court. Let, he be summoned through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.20.000/- with one surety in the like amount for date fixed. While, summons issued to ASI Darshan Singh received back unserved. Let, he be again summoned for date fixed.

¶39

(Baljinder Singh) JSC, Sangrur, (UID No.PB0107) Date: 11.11.2021”

¶40

“Both accused Raja @ Bittu and Tanvir Singh

¶41

PRINCE SAINI 2022.04.19 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

CRM-M No.54631 of 2021(O&M) �

¶43

have been produced by the jail authority through V.C from Security Jail, Nabha and Central Jail Bathinda. Let, they be again produced on 21.12.2021 through V.C.

¶44

Summons issued to SI Darshan Singh received back duly served. He has failed to come present in the Court. Let, he be again summoned through fresh bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for date fixed. While, summons issued to ASI Darshan Singh received back duly served. He has failed to come present in Court. Let, he be again summoned through fresh bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount for date fixed.

¶45

Baljinder Singh) JSC, Sangrur, (UID No.PB0107) Date: 01.12.2021”

¶46

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that out of

¶47

total 21 prosecution witnesses, 7 witnesses have been examined.

¶48

Perusal of the aforesaid zimni orders would show that the trial in any case will take sufficient time to conclude. Petitioner is in custody for the last 3 years, 2 months and 11 days as on 18.04.2022. Petitioner is not involved in any other case.

¶49

PRINCE SAINI 2022.04.19 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶50

CRM-M No.54631 of 2021(O&M) �

¶51

It appears that the trial is proceeding with snail pace despite observations made by this Court on 06.09.2021.

¶52

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and without meaning anything on merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail.

¶53

In view of above, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate.

¶54

Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of opinion on merits of the case.

¶55

	(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
19.04.2022	JUDGE
Prince
Whether speaking/reasoned	Yes/No
Whether reportable	Yes/No

¶56

PRINCE SAINI 2022.04.19 17:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Tanveer Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanveer Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Joginder Singh @ Bittu Vs State of Punjab

Gurjit Singh Vs State of Punjab

Yuval Kundu(Minor)through His Father Vs Union of India and Ors.

Bed Kiran Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Star City Realtech Priavte Limited Vs Rahul Upadayay and Others

Pathankot District Badminton Association Vs Union of India and Ors.