Allowed

Hem Raj v. Narcotics Control Bureau Chandigarh

Punjab & Haryana HC13 Aug 2024CRM-M/11242/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought in an NDPS case involving 4.8 kg charas. Petitioner in custody over 3 years 9 months; only 2 of 21 prosecution witnesses examined. Court balanced Section 37 NDPS rigour with Article 21 speedy trial rights and admitted petitioner to bail without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner admitted to regular bail on furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to satisfaction of Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Hem Raj Vs Narcotics Control Bureau Chandigarh — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

206

¶3

CRM-M-11242-2024 Date of Decision: 13.08.2024

HEM RAJ

…..Pe))oner

Vs.

NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU CHANDIGARH

¶8

…..Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶10

Present: Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for the pe��oner. Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for respondent-NCB

¶11

******

¶12

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶13

Prayer in this pe��on filed under Sec�on 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail in case bearing NCB Crime No. 56 of 2020 dated 16.10.2020, under Sec�ons 8, 20, 27A, 28, 29 and 31 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Narco�cs Control Bureau, Chandigarh.

¶14

This is a second pe��on. The earlier pe��on bearing CRM-M No.10186-2023 was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 26.07.2023.

¶15

As per allega�ons, on the basis of secret informa�on, the pe��oner was apprehended while traveling in bus. He was carrying a bag containing 02 packets. On checking, the same was found to be of charas, the weight of which was found to be 4.8 kilograms, which is 4.8 �mes the threshold from which the commerical category of charas starts.

¶16

The conten�on raised by learned counsel for the pe��oner is that the pe��oner is the first offender; that he is in custody for the last more than 03

¶17

PRIYANKA 2024.08.13 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

CRM-M-11242-2024

¶19

-2-

¶20

years and 09 months and that only 02 out of 21 witnesses have been examined so far. Trial is likely to take �me to conclude and so he be allowed bail.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent-NCB could not refute the

¶22

conten�on to the fact that out of 21 witnesses cited by prosecu�on only 02 witnesses have been examined so far.

¶23

The custody cer�ficate placed on record would indicate that the pe��oner is in custody for the last 03 years and 09 months and 06 days. The said custody cer�ficate does not indicate that pe��oner is involved in any other case. Thus, trial is likely to take long �me to conclude

¶24

Having regard to all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, par�cularly long custody perod of the pe��oner, the rigor of Sec�on 37 of the NDPS Act is required to be balanced with Ar�cle 21 of the Cons�tu�on of India providing for the fundamental right of the life and liberty, of which the right of speedy trial forms part.

¶25

As such, without commen�ng anything on the merits of the case, the pe��oner is admi>ed to bail. He is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the sa�sfac�on of learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶26

			( DEEPAK GUPTA )
13.08.2024			JUDGE
pry
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	:	Yes/No

¶27

PRIYANKA 2024.08.13 18:44 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Hem Raj v. Narcotics Control Bureau Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hem Raj v. Narcotics Control Bureau Chandigarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surjit Kaur Vs Karam Banga and Anr.

Braham Parkash Lathwal @ Brahm Parkash Lathwal Vs Karan Singh and Another

Satnam Singh @ Sattu Vs State of Punjab

Gurtej Singh Vs M/S Kalgidhar Trading Company/ Commsssion Agent Thr Its Partners

M/S G.K. Enterprises and Anr. Vs Vinod Mittal

Municipal Committee, Kukerian Vs Balwinder Singh