Allowed

Kulwinder Singh @ Guggu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Oct 2024CRM-M/13698/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two accused in an FIR under Sections 21, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act involving 2.65 kg heroin sought regular bail after 2 years 5 months custody with no witnesses examined. The Court balanced Section 37 NDPS Act rigor with Article 21 speedy trial rights and admitted both to bail.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners admitted to bail on furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Kulwinder Singh @ Guggu Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

212(2) CRM-M-13698-2024

¶3

Date of Decision: 03.10.2024

¶4

KULWINDER SINGH @ GUGGU …..Pe11oner

¶5

Vs.

¶6

STATE OF PUNJAB …..Respondent

¶7

2. CRM-M-42008-2024

¶8

AJAY PAL SINGH@ AJAY KUMAR @ GAGRI …..Pe11oner Vs.

¶9

STATE OF PUNJAB …..Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. Amit Arora, Advocate for the pe��oner in CRM-M-13698-2024.

¶12

Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate for the pe��oner in CRM-M-42008-2024.

¶13

Mr. R.K. Takkar, DAG, Punjab.

¶14

¶15

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Both the pe��oners by way of these pe��ons under Sec�on 439 CrPC, prayed for their release on regular bail in case FIR No.71 dated 14.04.2022, registered under Sec�ons 21, 23 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Sta�on Special Task Force, District STF Wing, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

¶17

For pe��oner-Kulwinder Singh @ Guggu, it is his third pe��on. His first pe��on bearing CRM-M-38563-2022 was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.04.2023 and his second pe��on bearing CRM-M-39075-2023 was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2023.

¶18

PRIYANKA 2024.10.03 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-13698-2024 -2CRM-M-42008-2024

¶20

Pe��oner Ajay Pal Singh has also approached this Court third �me as his first pe��on bearing CRM-M-39440 of 2022 was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.04.2023 and his second pe�toin bearing CRM-M-54671-2023 was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.12.2023.

¶21

Separate status reports in both the cases have been filed. As per the prosecu�on case, on the basis of secret informa�on to the effect that the two pe��oners were indulging in smuggling of heroin, having links with the Pakistani smugglers and that they used to get consignment from Pakistan and supply the same in different places in Punjab, both of them were apprehended on 19.04.2022. Ini�ally recovery of 1 kg 600 gram of heroin was effected from them. Later on, pursuant to the disclosure statement suffered by them, 500 gram each more of the heroin was recovered from the places disclosed by the two pe��oners. Thus, the total recovery effected is 2650 gram.

¶22

It is contended by ld. counsel of both the pe��oners, the pe��oners have been falsely implicated; that they are in custody for the last more than 2 years 5 months and not even a single witness has been examined so far.

¶23

On the other hand, ld. State counsel has opposed the bail pe��on by poin�ng out towards the commercial quan�ty of the recovered contraband which is more than 10 �mes the threshold from which the commercial quan�ty of heroin starts.

¶24

Custody cer�ficates as placed on record would reveal that both the pe��oners are in custody for the last 2 years 5 months and 6 days. The status report would indicates that though challan was filed on 07.10.2022, but charges were framed against them on 24.04.2024 and out of 15 witnesses cited by the

¶25

PRIYANKA 2024.10.03 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-13698-2024 -3CRM-M-42008-2024

¶27

prosecu�on, not even a single witness has been examined so far clearly sugges�ng that the trial is likely to take long �me to conclude. Not only this, as per the custody cer�ficates, none of the pe��oners are involved in any other criminal case. All the prosecu�on witnesses are either police or official witnesses and so, there is no apprehension of influencing them.

¶28

Having no�ced all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, par�cularly long incarcera�on of the two pe��oners in custody, 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

¶29

providing for the fundamental right to the life and liberty, of which the right of speedy trial forms part.

¶30

Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, but without commen�ng anything on the merits of the case, the pe��oners are admiCed to bail. They are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the sa�sfac�on of learned Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶31

Allowed.

¶32

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected case.

¶33

			( DEEPAK GUPTA )
03.10.2024			JUDGE
pry
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
	Whether reportable	:	Yes/No

¶34

PRIYANKA 2024.10.03 19:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kulwinder Singh @ Guggu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kulwinder Singh @ Guggu 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohini Pathania Vs Parveen Singh

Rakbir Kaur Vs Working Women Rural Welfare Society

Baljit Kumar Vs Beeru Ram and Anr.

Jitender Kumar @ Jony Vs State of Haryana

Ramesh Kumar Thukral Vs Neeraj Kumar and Anr.

Baldev Singh Alias Dehbo Alias Gurdev Singh Vs State of Punjab