Angrej Singh Vs State of Punjab

The instant one is the secon d petition that has been filed b y the petitioner for grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 50 d ated 12.04.202 3 , registered under Sections 18, 2 5 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 19 8 5 at Police St a tion Chattiwind, District A m ritsar. The first petition, be a ring number CRM-M-58062-2023 , was dismi s sed by this Court on 30.08.202 4 by passing a detailed order. The operative p art of the order dated 30.08. 2 024 reads as u n der:

¶15

“7. As per the allegations, 08 kgs. 500 grams of opium was rec o vered from a vehicle admittedly owned by the petitioner as on the nigh t of 12.04.2023 fro m the area of village Bhagtu p ura. Though it is c l aimed by the petitioner that his vehicle was lying parked outside his house and office of Huss a n Tour & Travels throughout the fateful day and in fact had been recovered f rom there and not f rom village Bhagtupura and has placed on reco r d some GPS tracker record and

¶16

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.20 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

CRM-M-2492-2025 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

photographs to p rove so, however, the authent i city of these docume n ts has to be established during trial on the basis of t he evidence to be produced b e fore the trial Court. T he quantity of alleged contra b and recovered in th i s case admittedly falls under the commercial qua n tity. Hence, the rigors of Sectio n 37 of the NDPS Ac t would be attracted in this case. The apprehension e x pressed by learned State co u nsel that the petition e r, if extended benefit of bail, m ay indulge in similar offences cannot be stated t o be unfounded at t h is stage. So far as the afor e said orders as reli e d upon by the petitioner are concerned, it is well settled proposition of law that the orders of ba i l are not necessarily orders of any precedent value. Reliance in this regard ca n be placed upon Gajanand Agarwal vs. State of Orrisa and others : 2006(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 311 . Therefore, keepi n g in view the gravity of allega t ions as levelled aga i nst the petitioner, the quantit y of alleged contrab a nd recovered in this case, the quantum of se n tence which the conviction m ay entail and the a t tendant facts and circumstanc e s of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that he does not de s erve to be granted concessio n of regular bail, at t his stage. Accordingly, the pr e sent petition is dismi s sed.”

¶20

The only argument which ha s been raised by learned counse l for the petitio n er for grant of regular bail to t h e petitioner is that extended p e riod of incarce r ation has entitled the petitioner to be released on bail and there f ore, it is urged by him that the petition deserve s to be allowed.

¶21

Per contra , it is argued by l e arned Assistant Advocate Gen e ral, Punjab th a t the previous petition as filed by the petitioner was dismisse d by MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.20 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

CRM-M-2492-2025 (O&M)

¶23

-3-

¶24

passing a detailed order by this Court by taking into consideration the contentio n s raised by both sides. It is s u bmitted that no new change i n the circumsta n ces has been pointed out. The mere extended perio d of incarcerat i on alone is not sufficient to gr a nt benefit of bail to the petiti o ner. Allegatio n s against the petitioner are quit e serious in nature. He was fou n d in possessio n of commercial quantity of th e contraband. Therefore, it is u r ged that the p e tition does not deserve to be all o wed. 4. I have heard learned counsel f or the parties at considerable le n gth and have g one through the record carefull y . 5. The previous petition as fi l ed by the petitioner for gra n t of regular ba i l had been dismissed vide ord e r dated 30.08.2024. The instant one has been f iled within a period of five m onths of the said order. It is w ell settled pr o position of law that when succ e ssive bail applications come b e fore the Court , the Court should be very ca u tious while considering the s a me. Successiv e bail applications can be ent e rtained by the Court when some substantia l change is established by the a c cused thereby making him ent i tled for grant of bail. Reference in this r egard can be made to State of Maharashtra Vs. Captain Buddhikota Subha Rao, AIR 1989 Supreme Court, 2292 , wherein it was observed so a nd it was further held that the C ourt should no t pass an order of release of a n accused on bail in successive bail applicatio n merely establishing some co s metic change between time ga p of two appli c ations. There must be some drastic change during the p e riod between t w o applications. Reference can also be made to Kalyan Chandra

¶25

Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav and another (2004) 7 SCC 528, wherein i t was observed by Hon’ble Su p reme Court that where the off e nce

¶26

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.20 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶27

CRM-M-2492-2025 (O&M) -4-

¶28

alleged against an accused is grave, bail c a nnot be granted only on the gr o und of long in c arceration.

¶29

After hearing the contentions as raised by learned counsel fo r the petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that no substantial or drastic ch a nge from the d ate of dismissal of the previou s petition as moved by the petiti o ner has been pointed out or made out from the pleas taken by the petiti o ner. Merely t h e extended/prolonged period o f incarceration or examinatio n of some mat e rial witnesses is not a ground t o extend any such benefit. Kee p ing in view the nature and gravity of the off e nce, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case to enlarge the petitioner on bail, especially in view of the fact that no dr a stic or material change in the c ircumstances has been made o u t. In view of t h e discussion as made above, but without meaning to make any comment o n the merits of the case, I a m of the considered opinion tha t the petition d o es not deserve to be allowed. H e nce, the same is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that the observations made hereinabove are o nly for the p u rpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall n o t be construed as an expression of opinion on t h e merits of the case.

¶30

18.03.2025 (MANISHA BATRA) Waseem Ansari JUDGE Whe t her speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whe t her reportable Yes/No

¶31

MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.03.20 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Angrej Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Angrej Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumit Vs State of Haryana

Seema Vs State of Haryana

Raj Kumar and Others Vs State of Punjab and Others

Manipal and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Parwinder Singh Alias Parvinder Singh Alias Babbu and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Navjot Kaur and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others