Jasraj Singh @ Jugnu vs State Of Punjab

Harpreet Singh Brar, J

This is the first petition filed under Section 483 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘BNSS’) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 198 dated 01.12.2017 registered under Section 22 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (herein-after to be referred to as ‘NDPS Act’) at Police Station City Patti, District Tarn Taran.

The brief facts of the present case are that it has been alleged in the FIR(supra) that police party were patrolling in the area and they saw that one haircut person was coming from the front side, who upon seeing the police party suddenly got panicked and turned back and started walking hurriedly and took out a polythene bag from the right pocket of his pant and threw it on the ground. He was apprehended on the basis of suspicion and upon checking the polythene bag thrown by him, it was found to be containing 40 small white coloured intox-icant tablets.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case. Further the alleged contraband recovered from the conscious possession of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of commercial quantity. As such, the embargo created under Section 37 of NDPS Act would not be applicable to the petitioner and he has undergone total custody of 01 year 07 months and 15 days and till date the prosecution has not been able to conclude its evidence as out of total 08 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined and the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023.

Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and per contra, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that petitioner is a habitual offender and he is involved in 04 other cases, out of which, in two cases, his presence has been sought through production warrants by the learned trial Court and further the petitioner has misused his liberty and has absconded on 30.09.2023 and he was declared as proclaimed offender on the said date. However, he could not controvert the fact that petitioner has suffered incarceration of 01 year 07 months and 15 days and his case is squarely covered by the ratio of law laid down in Nandlal Mondal(supra).

A two Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Satender Ku-mar Antil v. CBI’ (2022) 10 SCC 51, with respect to prevailing conditions of undertrial prisoner in India has observed:

“6. Jails in India are flooded with undertrial prisoners. The statistics placed before us would indicate that more than 2/3rd of the inmates of the prisons constitute undertrial prisoners. Of this category of prisoners, majority may not even be required to be arrested despite registration of a cognizable offence, be-ing charged with offences punishable for seven years or less. They are not only poor and illiterate but also would include women. Thus, there is a culture of offence being inherited by many of them. As observed by this Court, it certainly exhibits the mindset, a vestige of colonial India, on the part of the investigating agency, notwithstanding the fact arrest is a draconian measure resulting in curtailment of liberty, and thus to be used sparingly. In a demo cracy, there can never be an impression that it is a police State as both are conceptually oppo-site to each other.”

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars from the last 1 year 07 months and 15 days as on 02.07.2025. Investigation is complete. The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and trial of the case will take considerable long time to conclude as out of total 8 prosecution witnesses, only 02 have been examined till date. No useful pur-pose shall be served by further detention of the accused/petitioner.

A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mon-dal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023 released the accused on bail after completion of 18 months of custody on account of protracted trial in NDPS case involving commercial quantity of contraband. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Alius Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 000736/2024, Debrata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14970-2023, Santarul Islam @ Santa Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 13169/2023, Indrajit Mondal @ Piglu Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8512/2023, Narjul Islam @ Najbul Hoque Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14172/2023, Subhashri Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15284/2023, Mithun Sk. & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.016598/2023, SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasird-din SK. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.003402/2024, Indadul Shah Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 12670/2023 , Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh Vs. Union of India, Ripon Seikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 16663/2023, Moidul Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl).No. 15668/ 2023, Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 2354/2024, Saddam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15496/2023, Bijon SK @ Golam Murselim Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 6046/2024 and Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8823/2019.

Further, the culpability, if any, would be determined at the time of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner-accused. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR SC 1648 has held that the concept of fairness enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would trump the bar on granting bail in cases in-volving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, has opined as follows:

“20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reas-onably see whether the accused’s guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reas-onable reading, which does not call for meticulous examina-tion of the materials collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra) . is of the opinion that serves to be enlarged Having regard to these factors the court in the facts of this case, the appellant de-on bail.

Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable.

Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling.”

(emphasis added)

In view of the ratio of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prabhakar Tiwari Vs. State of UP and Anr. 2020(1) RCR (Criminal) 831 and Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2012(2) SCC 382, the involvement of accused in other criminal cases cannot be the sole ground to deny him the concession of bail.

In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner-Jasraj Singh @ Jugnu is ordered to be released on regular bail during pendency of the trial, on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial.