Allowed

Pardeep Kumar @ Deepu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC2 Apr 2024CRM-M/4103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in an NDPS case. Despite being a habitual offender, the Court granted bail because 8 co-accused were on bail and the prosecution evidence had not commenced despite the petitioner's incarceration for over one year. Standard conditions were imposed.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail by furnishing bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Pardeep Kumar @ Deepu Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-4103-2024

¶2

1 2024:PHHC:043751

¶3

216

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶5

CRM-M-4103-2024

¶6

Date of decision : 02.04.2024

¶7

PARDEEP KUMAR @ DEEPU

¶8

....Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

STATE OF PUNJAB ....Respondent

¶11

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

¶12

Present: Mr. Bhupinder Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

¶14

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)

¶15

This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.166 dated 9^th of July, 2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 15, 21, 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 22-B and 27 of NDPS Act added later on) at Police Station City Muktsar, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

¶16

Custody Certificate of the petitioner has been filed today in Court. The same is taken on record.

¶17

As per the case of the prosecution FIR was registered on the complaint submitted by one Balwinder Singh ASI Police Station City Sri Muktsar Sahib on the basis of secret information received by him that

¶18

Deepak Kumar 2024.04.02 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶19

CRM-M-4103-2024 2 2024:PHHC:043751

¶20

Pardeep Kumar @ Deepu the present petitioner along with eight other accused(s) were dealing in narcotics/psychotropic substances.

¶21

On the basis of the information, written communication was prepared and sent to police station. As per the prosecution following recoveries were made:

¶22

Name of the accused	Recovery	Arrested on
Kattar Singh	300 Tramadol 480 loose tablets	09.07.2022
Akashdeep Singh @ Deepu	195 Alpracan	15.07.2022
Pardeep Kumar @ Deepu	810 Alpracan	09.07.2022
Geja	80 Tramadol	19.07.2022

¶23

Counsel for the petitioner relies upon orders dated 30^th of May, 2023 (in CRM-M-14087-2023), 19^th of January, 2023 (in CRM-M-18992023), 13^th of September, 2022 (in CRM-M-40996-2022), 8^th of September, 2022 (in CRM-M-39961-2022), 2^nd of November, 2023 (in CRM-M-214222023), 5^th of September, 2023 (in CRM-M-36777 of 2023), 7^th of November, 2023 (in CRM-M-13890-2023) and that dated 2^nd of February, 2024 (in CRM-M-58395-2023) whereby 8 other co-accused persons namely Lovepreet Singh alias Jimmy, Ravi Singh @ Bullet, Sukhjeet Kaur @ Mandeep Kaur, Manjeet Kaur, Satish Kumar, Geja Singh, Rajinder Kumar, Kattar Singh @ Baba Kattar @ Ikatar Singh @ Sikatar Singh have already been granted bail. Further submits that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 1 year 8 months and 24 days and the prosecution evidence is yet to start despite the fact that almost all the witnesses are official.

¶24

Deepak Kumar 2024.04.02 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶25

CRM-M-4103-2024 3

¶26

2024:PHHC:043751

¶27

Bail plea is opposed by counsel representing the Stage on the ground that the petitioner is a habitual offender and is facing two more FIRs under the NDPS Act.

¶28

Faced with the situation, counsel for the petitioner submits that in FIR No.127 dated 17^th of August, 2017 the petitioner has been accused of being in possession of 5 grams of heroin . Reference is being made to Annexure P-12. He further submits that in FIR No.330 dated 16^th of September, 2023 also the petitioner stands admitted to bail vide order dated 14^th of March, 2024.

¶29

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.

¶30

Though the contents of the FIR No.330 would show that the petitioner indeed is incorrigible and even while in jail he is alleged to have received heroin as well as ganja from his family members. However, keeping in view the fact that 8 other co-accused stand admitted to bail, the incarceration suffered by the petitioner and the fact that the State has not even been able to commence the prosecution evidence despite the fact that the petitioner is behind bars for more than 1 year, 8 months and 24 days, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

¶31

However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, the petitioner shall remain bound by the following conditions:

¶32

Deepak Kumar 2024.04.02 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-4103-2024

2024:PHHC:043751

(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.

¶37

(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence oral or documentary during the trial.

¶38

(iii) The petitioner shall not absent himself on any date before the trial.

¶39

(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence while on bail.

¶40

(v) The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any with the trial Court.

¶41

(vi) The petitioner shall give his cellphone number to the police authorities and shall not change his cellphone number without permission of the trial Court.

¶42

(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the trial.

¶43

In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and those which may be imposed by the Trial Court, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.

¶44

Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

¶45

April 02, 2024	(Pankaj Jain)
Dpr	Judge
Whether speaking/reasoned	: Yes/No
Whether reportable	: Yes/No

¶46

Deepak Kumar 2024.04.02 17:41 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Pardeep Kumar @ Deepu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pardeep Kumar @ Deepu 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

Gourav Chauhan Vs State of Haryana

Gursewak Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sachin Vs State of Haryana

Prince @ Kalagi Vs State of Punjab

Rahul Malik Vs State of Haryana

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab