Allowed

Akashdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2024CRM-M/4456/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court allowed regular bail petitions filed by two accused in an NDPS case involving intoxicating tablets. Despite commercial category drugs being recovered and the rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act, bail was granted considering prolonged custody exceeding 1 year 9 months and lack of speedy trial advance.

What did the court decide?

Regular bail allowed on furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate; pending applications disposed of.

Akashdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab — Narcotics (NDPS) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

I. CRM-M-25613-2023

¶4

AMANDEEP SINGH @ AMANI

¶5

STATE OF PUNJAB

¶6

. . . . Petitioner Vs. . . . . Respondent ****

¶7

II. CRM-M-4456-2023

¶8

AKASHDEEP SINGH

¶9

. . . . Petitioner Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB

. . . . Respondent

RESERVED ON: 27.05.2024 PRONOUNCED ON: 28.05.2024

¶14

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA

¶16

¶17

Present: - Mr. J.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-25613-2023)

¶18

Mr. Suvir Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CRM-M-4456-2023).

¶19

Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶20

¶21

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

¶22

In the two petitions titled above, both filed under Section 439

¶23

CrPC, petitioners pray for their release on regular bail in case FIR No.159 dated 03.08.2022 under Sections 22(C) and 27 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [for short ‘the NDPS Act’] registered at

¶24

Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa, Punjab.

¶25

VIVEK PAHWA 2024.05.29 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶26

CRM-M-25613-2023 CRM-M-4456-2023

¶27

2024:PHHC:075862 2024:PHHC:075868

¶28

Separate status reports in both the cases have been filed by the respondent-State.

¶29

As per prosecution allegations, on 03.08.2022, a police party headed by ASI Jaswinder Singh of Police Station, City Budhlada, District Mansa was on patrolling and was checking the suspects. When the police party reached near old age home, Budhlada, it apprehended three suspects, carrying transparent polythene bag, out of which intoxicating tablets were clearly visible. On the information supplied by ASI Jaswinder Singh, SI Karam Singh reached the spot and in his presence, identities of the three suspects were enquired, who disclosed their names as Amandeep Singh @ Amani (petitioner in CRM-M-25613-2023) , Akashdeep Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-4456-2023) and Sukhpal Dass. On checking the transparent polythene bag, strips containing 4000 tablets of Alprasafe; and 800 tablets of Tramatrust SR 100 were recovered. These were taken into possession after making statutory compliances. Reports in respect of samples drawn out of the recovered intoxicating tablets were received from FSL Bathinda. It was found that the 4000 intoxicating tablets make Alprasafe were containing the salt of Alprazolam and the total weight thereof was found to be 485.72 gram. The 800 intoxicating tablets make Tramatrust SR 100 were found to contain the salt of Tramadol Hydrochloride and the total weight of these tablets was found to be 304.248 gram. Necessary investigation was conducted and thereafter, challan has been filed.

¶30

It is contended by ld. counsels on behalf of both the petitioners that they have been falsely implicated by the police party by concocting a false story. Ld. counsels contend that it is highly improbable that petitioners

¶31

VIVEK PAHWA 2024.05.29 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

Page 2 of 4

¶33

CRM-M-25613-2023 CRM-M-4456-2023

¶34

2024:PHHC:075862 2024:PHHC:075868

¶35

will carry the intoxicating tablets in a transparent polythene bag in such a way that they could be easily visible to the police party approaching them and that the entire story has been concocted in order to avoid the compliance of mandatory provision of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. Ld. counsels further contend that both the petitioners are in custody for the last more than 1 year and 9 months; that trial is not proceeding further and may take long time to conclude and so, in all these circumstances, they be allowed regular bail.

¶36

5.1 Strongly opposing the bail petitions, ld. State counsel points out that two different contrabands, both falling in commercial category, have been recovered from the possession of petitioners and co-accused and so, rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall be applicable.

¶37

5.2 However, it is conceded by ld. State counsel, on the basis of custody certificate placed on record, that both the petitioners are in custody for the last more than 1 year and 9 months and that none of them is involved in any other case.

¶38

5.3 Apart from above, ld. State counsel also informs that out of 12 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only one has been examined so far. Thus, trial is likely to take long time to conclude.

¶39

Having regard to all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the rigor of Section 37 of the NDPS Act is required to be balanced with Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees fundamental right to life and liberty, of which speedy trial also forms a part.

¶40

Considering all the aforesaid facts and circumstances as noted above, but without commenting anything further on merits of the case, both

¶41

VIVEK PAHWA 2024.05.29 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶42

Page 3 of 4

¶43

CRM-M-25613-2023 CRM-M-4456-2023

¶44

2024:PHHC:075862 2024:PHHC:075868

¶45

the petitions are allowed. Petitioners are admitted to regular bail on their furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, by observing usual terms and conditions.

¶46

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶47

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other

¶48

connected case.

¶49

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 28.05.2024 JUDGE �� Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes Whether reportable? No

¶50

VIVEK PAHWA 2024.05.29 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶51

Page 4 of 4

Akashdeep Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akashdeep 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suraj Lal Vs State of Haryana

Sahib Singh Vs Gurdial Singh

Guru Granth Sahib Gurudwara Vs Gurdial Singh and Ors.

Kirpal Singh Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jatinder Singh Alias Kaki Vs State of Punjab

Surjit Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others