Gurpreet Singh @ Gurdeep vs State Of Rajasthan

Kuldeep Mathur, J

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.281/2020 registered at Police Station Jetsar, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Sections 8/22 & 29 of the NDPS Act.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused namely Amarjeet Singh @ Gyani has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 01.04.2024 in Criminal Misc. 3rd Bail Application No.3502/2024. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the case of present petitioner is not distinguishable from the above named co-accused person. The order dated 01.04.2024 passed by this Court is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“This third application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with FIR No.281/2020 registered at Police Station Jaitsar, District Sri Ganganagar, for offences under Sections 8/22 and 29 of the NDPS Act.

Learned counsel submitted that as per the prosecution, during routine patrolling, on 22.11.2020, a team of Police Station Jaitsar, on suspicion, made a search of two persons namely Gurpreet Singh @ Gurdeep Singh and Amarjeet Singh @ Gyani (the present petitioner). After search being made, police recovered 1270 tablets of Tramadol from the present petitioner. The petitioner was arrested on the spot.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.11.2020. He further submitted that out of the total 14 cited prosecution witnesses, only 3 prosecution witnesses have been examined before competent Criminal Court. He further submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since the last three years and looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in the near future.

In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the cases of Rabi Prakash Vs. State of Orisa (Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4169/2023 and Mohd Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No(s).915 of 2023.

On these grounds, he implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application and submitted that petitioner is facing trial for the offences under the NDPS Act and, therefore, the present bail application deserves to be rejected straightway. Learned Public Prosecutor, however, was not in position to refute the fact that in last 3 years 4 months, out of total 14 cited prosecution witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered incarceration for 3 years 4 months and out of total 14 cited prosecution witnesses, only 3 witnesses have been examined till date, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

Accordingly, the third bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Amarjeet Singh @ Gyani S/o Kachmir Singh shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.281/2020 registered at Police Station Jaitsar, District Sri Ganganagar, provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to so.

In case, the petitioner remains absent on any date of hearing or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking unnecessary adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to him by this Court. The prosecution, in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner today by this Court.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.11.2020. He further submitted that out of the total 14 cited prosecution witnesses, till date only 3 prosecution witnesses have been examined before the competent Criminal Court. He further submitted that the delay in trial is not at all attributable to the present petitioner. He submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody since the last more than three years and four months and looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in the near future.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that above named co-accused has already been enlarged on bail by this Court.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the co-accused Amarjeet Singh @ Gyani, who has already been enlarged on bail by this Court; and the fact that the petitioner is in judicial custody since 22.11.2020 and looking to the pace at which trial is being conducted against the present petitioner, the same is not likely to be concluded in the near future; thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the bail application filed by the petitioner deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Gurpreet Singh @ Gurdeep S/o Amarsingh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.281/2020 registered at Police Station Jetsar, District Sri Ganganagar, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.1,00,00/- and two sureties of Rs.50,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.

In case, the petitioner remains absent on any date of hearing or makes an attempt to delay the trial by seeking unnecessary adjournments, it shall be taken as a misuse of concession of bail granted to him by this Court. The prosecution, in such a situation, shall be at liberty to move an application seeking cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner today by this Court.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.