Shamsher Singh vs State of Punjab

H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 483 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 439 Cr.P.C.) seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.159 dated 27.06.2024, registered under Section 21-C of the NDPS Act (Sections 27-A & 29 of the NDPS Act added later on), at Police Station Jandiala, District Amritsar.

The case of the prosecution is that on 27.06.2024, the police party apprehended the petitioner and upon checking, recovery of 260 grams of heroin was allegedly effected from him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case and the alleged recovery has been planted upon him. It is submitted that there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act as no independent witness was joined at the time of alleged recovery. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of heroin was weighed along with the polythene, which carries a margin of error of about 5%. If the weight of the polythene is excluded from the total weight, the actual quantity of the alleged recovery would fall under the category of non-commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years, 02 months and 03 days. He, therefore, prays for release of the petitioner on regular bail as the trial qua the petitioner is likely to take a long time as only 01 of the 12 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far inspite of the facts that all the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses and charges were framed way back on 19.12.2024.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State and vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner in Court, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than 02 years, 02 months and 03 days. He, upon instructions, submits that only 01 of the 12 cited prosecution witnesses has been examined so far.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

As per the case of the prosecution, 260 grams of heroin was allegedly recovered from the petitioner, which is stated to have been weighed along with the polythene. The petitioner has been in custody for the last more than 02 years, 02 months and 03 days. Out of the 12 prosecution witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 01 witness has been examined so far, despite the fact that the charges were framed on 19.12.2024. It is also relevant to note that all the prosecution witnesses are official witnesses and even non-bailable warrants have been issued to secure their presence. However, they have still not appeared before the trial Court to depose against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take considerable time. The foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence is to ensure a speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the right to a speedy trial is an integral facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The guarantee of a speedy trial extends to every stage of criminal proceedings, commencing from the investigation and continuing through inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial. It has further been held that where a person is deprived of his liberty under a procedure which is not fair, just and reasonable, such deprivation would offend Article 21 of the Constitution. Reference, in this regard, may be made to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC 579.

In view of the overall discussion, this Court deems it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial as the continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner misuses the concession of bail, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail.