Dismissed

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2023CRM-M/17108/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a bail application filed by Satnam Singh charged under the NDPS Act for possession of commercial quantity heroin. The Court noted his criminal antecedents and rejected bail on merits. However, it ordered the trial court to conclude proceedings by December 31, 2023, warning that delays would result in recalling the order.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed, bail denied. Trial court directed to complete trial by Dec 31, 2023.

Satnam Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2023)

¶1

1 Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:098130

¶2

CRWP-17108-2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-17108-2022

¶5

Reserved on: 26.07.2023 Pronounced on: 01.08.2023

Satnam Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

¶12

Present: Mr. Ankur Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.

¶14

¶15

ANOOP CHITKARA, J.

¶16

FIR No.	Dated	Police Station	Sections
67	27.07.2021	Valtoha, District	21 C of NDPS Act
		Tarn Taran

¶17

The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above, on the allegations of possession of 260 grams of heroin which is a commercial quantity,has come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking bail.

¶18

In paragraph 14 of the bail petition as well as para 5 of the reply dated 30.05.2022

¶19

, the accused has the following criminal antecedents:

¶20

Sr. No.	FIR No.	Date	Offences	Police Station
1	06	23.11.2020	21/61/85 of NDPS Act	Valtoha
2	136	21.12.2020	21 of NDPS Act	Valtoha

¶21

Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and is also voluntarily agreeable to the condition that till the conclusion of the trial before the trial court, the petitioner shall keep only one mobile number, which is mentioned in AADHAR card, and within fifteen days of release from prison undertakes to disconnect all other mobile numbers. The petitioner contends that the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

¶22

While opposing bail, the contentions on behalf of the State are that given the

¶23

ANJU RANI 2023.08.02 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRWP-17108-2022

Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:098130

¶28

criminal past, the accused is likely to indulge in crime once released on bail.

¶29

REASONING:

¶30

InParamjeet Singh v. State of Punjab , 2022:PHHC:003983 [Para 8] , CRM-M 50243 of 2021, this court observed,

¶31

While considering each bail petition of the accused with a criminal history, it throws an onerous responsibility upon the Courts to act judiciously with reasonableness because arbitrariness is the antithesis of law. The criminal history must be of cases where the accused was convicted, including the suspended sentences and all pending First Information Reports, wherein the bail petitioner stands arraigned as an accused. In reckoning the number of cases as criminal history, the prosecutions resulting in acquittal or discharge, or when Courts quashed the FIR; the prosecution stands withdrawn, or prosecution filed a closure report; cannot be included. Although crime is to be despised and not the criminal, yet for a recidivist, the contours of a playing field are marshy, and graver the criminal history, slushier the puddles.

¶32

The petitioner has criminal history of heinous and grave crimes. The petition does not refer to any averment based on which this court is assured that if this recidivist is released on bail, then he shall not indulge in criminal behavior.

¶33

A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached, primafacie points towards the petitioner’s involvement and does not make out a case for bail and he is neither entitled to bail on merits nor on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial incarceration. Any further discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.

¶34

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

¶35

The petition is dismissed . All pending applications, if any, stand closed.

¶36

However, considering the petitioner's right to speedy trial coupled with the pre-trial incarceration, this court requests the concerned trial court to make all endeavours to conclude the trial by Dec 31, 2023, of which the prosecution evidence be completed by Oct 31, 2023, and latest by Nov 30, 2023, and the remaining time to provide an opportunity to the accused to lead defence evidence, if so desired, and to conclude its hearing. To meet the deadline, an endeavour be made to speed up the process for service and to pass the necessary directions in this regard. It is clarified that if expediting this trial disturbs the docket of the concerned court, then a balance be struck, and if, on

¶37

ANJU RANI this account, any delay happens, then an extension can be sought by mentioning such 2023.08.02 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2

¶38

3 CRWP-17108-2022 Neutral Citation No.: 2023:PHHC:098130

¶39

reasons. It is clarified that this order speeding up the trial is subject to the condition that neither the petitioner shall seek any adjournment nor try to use any tactics to delay the trial. If they do so, this order of expediting the trial shall stand automatically recalled by resorting to Section 362, read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without any further reference to this court. If any of the accused is on bail and fail(s) to attend the trial without any sufficient cause, then they be dealt with strictly but in accordance with law.

¶40

(ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE

¶41

01.08.2023 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable: No.

¶42

ANJU RANI 2023.08.02 14:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶43

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satnam 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

Gursewak Singh @ Sewak Vs State of Punjab

Roshan Din and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Balwant Vs State of Haryana and Others

Hardip Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Geeta Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others