Allowed

Samma v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Dec 2023CRM-M/60780/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS Act case involving recovery of commercial quantity. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the rigors of Section 37 regarding independent witnesses could be diluted due to the long custody period and delay in trial violating Article 21 rights.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on regular bail subject to furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate and compliance with conditions regarding tampering with evidence, interfering wit

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

CRM-M-60780-2023

2023:PHHC:157145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

(237)

¶6

CRM-M-60780-2023

¶7

Date of Decision: 08.12.2023

Samma

…Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab …Respondent

¶12

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY

¶13

¶14

Present: Mr.P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr.Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.

¶16

¶17

AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

¶18

Prayer in the present second petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.137 dated 03.06.2022, registered under Section 15-C and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) at Police Station Shahkot, District Jalandhar (Rural).

¶19

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for 1 year and about 06 months. He has been falsely implicated in the case. There is non-compliance of mandatory provisions of Sections 42 of the Act. No independent witness was joined at the time of the recovery. Charges were framed on 16.03.2023, however, none out of 12 prosecution witnesses has been examined. The petitioner is not involved in any other case.

¶20

As per custody certificate dated 07.12.2023 has been filed by learned State counsel, the petitioner is behind bars for 01 year, 06 months and 04 days.

¶21

Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the commercial quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner, who

¶22

HAMANT 2023.12.08 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶23

CRM-M-60780-2023

¶24

2023:PHHC:157145 2

¶25

was apprehended at the spot. He is however unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stage of the case as also the petitioner not being involved in any other case under the Act.

¶26

Heard.

¶27

Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Kumar Shukla vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh , SLP (Criminal) No.6690/2022 decided on 25.01.2023 observed that in case of long custody period, involving quantity recovered to be of commercial nature, where the trial is yet to commence, though charges had been framed, the condition of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be dispensed with. In the case of Bhupender Singh vs. Narcotic Control Bureau (2022) 2 RCR (Crl.) 706, the Division Bench of this Court observed with regard to achieving balance between right to speedy trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act. Similarly, in the case of Shariful Islam @ Sarif vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.4173/2022, decided on 04.08.2022, Hon'ble The Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner in a case of recovery of commercial quantity of contraband, considering incarceration for over 1 year and 6 months and there being no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future. In the case of Munasi Masih vs. State of Punjab , CRM-M-31504-2022, decided on 06.02.2023, this Court granted bail to a first offender from whom commercial quantity of contraband had been recovered and only 2 out of 13 PWs have been examined, by observing that in view of delayed trial, the rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act can be diluted to an extent and the petitioner can be granted bail, keeping in mind the right to a speedy trial as envisaged Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

HAMANT 2023.12.08 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶29

CRM-M-60780-2023

¶30

2023:PHHC:157145 3

¶31

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 1 year, 06 months and 04 days; not involved in any other case under the Act; Charges were framed on 16.03.2023; there are a total of 12 prosecution witnesses, out of whom none has been examined so far; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, thus further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of Section 37 of the Act can be diluted bearing in mind the right to a speedy trial, thus, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.

¶32

As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

¶34

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

¶35

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

¶36

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected of.

¶37

(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any manner.

¶38

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

¶39

(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile

¶40

HAMANT 2023.12.08 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CRM-M-60780-2023

2023:PHHC:157145

number to the Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.

¶45

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

¶46

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

¶47

It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.

¶48

In view of the above, it is clarified that the observations made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

¶49

(AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE

¶50

08.12.2023
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes / No
Whether reportable	: Yes / No

¶51

HAMANT 2023.12.08 16:36 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

Samma v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samma 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

Smt Udham Kaur Vs Pritam Chand

Rani Devi and Ors. Vs Rajpal and Ors.

Yusuf & Ors. Vs Nafis Ahmed & Ors.

Om Parkash and Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Nidhi Vs State of Punjab

Lakhwinder Singh @ Bittu Vs State of Punjab