Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1002 (PNJ)

Sandeep Kumar v. State of Punjab

2024-07-04

HARSH BUNGER

body2024
JUDGMENT Harsh Bunger, J. (Oral) Petitioner (Sandeep Kumar) has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.60 dated 24.11.2022, under Sections 21 (B) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Sections 21 (c), 27A and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act were added later on) registered at Police Station Behrampur, District Gurdaspur (Annexure P-1). 2. Custody certificate dated 04.07.2024 of the petitioner and status report dated 03/04.07.2024 by way of affidavit of Sukhwinder Pal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dinanagar, District Gurdaspur on behalf of the respondent/State of Punjab have been filed by learned State counsel in Court today, which are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. 3. Briefly, the aforesaid case FIR was registered on 24.11.2022. It transpires that on 24.11.2022, Sub Inspector Deepika, Station House Officer, Police Station Behrampur received a secret information that three young boys namely Rohit Kumar, Deepak Kumar and Rajan Kumar, who are into the business of selling heroin, were wandering and roaming in i-20 car bearing registration No.PB-18-W-6161 towards Village Kaire. 3.1 Considering the information reliable and after following the due process, the barricades were laid down and the said car was intercepted, whereby Rohit Kumar was found driving the vehicle; Deepak Kumar was found sitting on the front adjoining seat and Rajan Kumar was found sitting on the back seat of the vehicle. Thereafter, search was conducted and one kit was found lying under the feet of Rajan Kumar. Upon checking thereof, 274 grams of heroin was found. Upon being questioned, Rajan Kumar disclosed that he along with his brothers-in-law, namely Rohit Kumar and Deepak Kumar are into the business of selling heroin and they had purchased 400 grams of heroin from one Sandeep @ Happy (petitioner) from Village Gana, Police Station Philaur, District Jalandhar for an amount of Rs.2,100/- per gram; and out of the same, he had sold 126 grams of heroin to the daughter-in-law (Rozi @ Dimpy) of his maternal uncle at the price of Rs.2,300/- per grams; and now, they had got Rs.5000/- along with rest of the heroin (274 grams), which they were to sell to other customers. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered. 4. Accordingly, the present FIR was registered. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case only on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has nothing to do with the alleged offence and no recovery has been effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner rather the alleged recovery was effected from a kit allegedly lying under the feet of co-accused Rajan Kumar. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there has been non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act. 4.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that co-accused Roji @ Dimpi has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 13.09.2023 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.8976 of 2023 and other co-accused namely Deepak Kumar and Rohit Kumar have also been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.05.2024 in CRM-M-14097-2023 and CRM-M-13739-2023 respectively. 4.2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was arrested in the instant case on 25.04.2023 and he was granted interim bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.12.2023 and he has not misused the concession of interim bail and is regularly appearing before the trial Court. 4.3 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has already undergone actual custody in this case for a period of seven months and twenty three days; investigation in the case is complete, supplementary challan stands presented on 18.05.2023, therefore, the trial is likely to take some time to conclude. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready to abide by all the conditions as may be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is also ready to furnish security in the form of Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) of Rs.50,000/- before the concerned Court, so as to ensure his presence before the Court on each and every date of hearing, accordingly it is submitted that the aforesaid order dated 14.12.2023 be made absolute. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of petitioner for grant of regular bail on the ground of seriousness and gravity of the offence. 5. Per contra, learned State counsel opposes the prayer of petitioner for grant of regular bail on the ground of seriousness and gravity of the offence. It is submitted that the recovered contraband in the instant case was found to be heroin, as per the report given by the Forensic Science Laboratory, Amritsar and the same falls under the category of 'commercial quantity' and thus, rigors of Section 37 of the N.D.P.S. Act are attracted in this case. While referring to the status report, learned State counsel has submitted that besides the present case, the petitioner is also involved in nine more cases. Learned State counsel further states that there is an apprehension that in the event of grant of bail, the petitioner may abscond to delay the trial. Accordingly, prayer has been made for dismissal of the present petition. 5.1 However while referring to the custody certificate, it is conceded by learned State counsel that petitioner has undergone actual custody in the instant case for a period of seven months and nineteen days. Learned State counsel further concedes that investigation in the case is complete, supplementary challan stands presented and after grant of interim bail on 14.12.2023, the petitioner is regularly appearing before the trial Court. 6. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is involved in nine other criminal cases, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of nine cases, six cases are under the NDPS Act and in these cases, the petitioner is either on bail or stands discharged or the petitioner has already undergone his sentence. 6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner to rebut the contention of State counsel regarding criminal antecedents of the petitioner, has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another", 2012(2) SCC 382 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below :- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below :- "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper book as well as the status report and custody certificate of the petitioner. 8. In the instant case, the petitioner is on interim bail and he has undergone actual custody for a period of seven months and nineteen days. Investigation in the case is complete, supplementary challan stands presented on 18.05.2023; therefore, this Court has reason to believe that the trial in this case is likely to take some time to conclude. 9. In the peculiar facts of the present case and on an assessment of material on record, I am of the prima facie view at this stage that the petitioner may not have committed the alleged offence, as the alleged recovery is stated to have been effected from a kit lying under the feet of co-accused Rajan Kumar and the petitioner has been nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of a co-accused. 10. Furthermore, petitioner has already been released on interim bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.12.2023. Learned State counsel has not put forth any circumstance to indicate that petitioner has misused the concession of interim bail or that the petitioner has remained absent during trial. The other co-accused are also on bail. 11. In "Manoranjana Sinh alias Gupta v. CBI", (2017) 5 SCC 218 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial. 11.1 Pertinently, appropriate directions can be issued for securing the attendance of the petitioner during the trial. 12. 11.1 Pertinently, appropriate directions can be issued for securing the attendance of the petitioner during the trial. 12. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the order dated 14.12.2023 is made absolute. However, the concerned Station House Officer shall be informed about the release of petitioner and the petitioner shall inform the concerned Station House Officer about his address at which he intends to reside during the pendency of case/trial and any change in the address shall be communicated to the concerned Station House Officer, forthwith. The petitioner would also furnish his telephone number to the concerned Station House Officer. He would also furnish his undertaking to the effect that he will not indulge in any illegal activity. The petitioner shall also mark his presence before the concerned Police Station/Station House Officer on first Monday of every month till the conclusion of trial and in case the Station House Officer refuses to mark his presence, he is permitted to make an application before the Illaqa Magistrate, concerned. 13. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare a Fixed Deposit Receipt (F.D.R.) in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and submit the same with the trial Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited as per law, in case the petitioner remains absent from trial without any sufficient cause. 14. During the bail period, the State/Prosecuting Agency/State police shall be at liberty to observe the behaviour of the petitioner and in case it feels that the petitioner is causing interference with the progress of trial, it shall be open for the State/Prosecuting Agency/State police to move to the trial Court for cancellation of the bail, which shall be decided by the trial Court on merits. 15. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall be construed to be an observation on merits of the case and the facts and circumstances recorded above are only for consideration of the prayer for bail at this stage. 16. The petition is accordingly disposed of. 17. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.