AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
67 paragraphs · 698 wordsFIR No.
Dated
Police Station
Section/s
165
10.06.2020
Patran, District
Patiala
Sections 22 & 29 of the
NDPS Act.
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J
The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.
As per the case of prosecution, on 10.06.2020 at about 1.00 PM, the petitioner alongwith co-accused Gurpreet Singh was apprehended while in possession of 4500 tablets of Clovidol 100 SR ‘Tramadol Hydorchloride’.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 2 years & 10 months and that since the trial is proceeding at snail’s pace, the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.
On the other hand, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner was caught red handed at the spot alongwith co-accused Gurpreet Singh and huge quantity of contraband was recovered from the rear seat of the car in which they were travelling, his complicity is clearly evident. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 2 years, 10 months & 14 days. Learned State counsel has also informed that though there are 3 more cases against the petitioner, but he is not involved in any other case under the NDPS Act. It has also been informed that only 3 PWs out of cited 17 PWs have been examined till date.
This Court has considered rival submissions.
Since the petitioner seeks grant of bail mainly on account of long custody, it is apposite to refer to a few judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted the concession of bail solely on ground of long custody:
Case No.
Date of Decision
Title of case
Period which the accused had
undergone when granted bail by Hon’ble Supreme Court
Criminal Appeal No.245/2020
07.02.2020
Chitta Biswas @ Subhas
Vs. The State of West Bengal
1 year & 7 months
Criminal Appeal No.668/2020
12.10.2020
Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh
2 years & 7 months
Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.5769/2022
01.08.2022
Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. The State of West Bengal
1 year & 7 months
Special Leave to Appeal
(Criminal) No.4173/2022
04.08.2022
Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. The State of West Bengal
1 year & 6 months
Criminal Appeal No.1169/2022
05.08.2022
Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union
of India
2 years, 1 month & 17 days
Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.5530/2022
22.08.2022
Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh Vs. The State of Gujarat
About 2 years
Criminal Appeal
No.2027-2022
22.11.2022
Karnail Singh Vs. The
State of Odisha
1 year & 8 months
Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal)
No.8653-2022
25.11.2022
Karim Adaldar Vs. The State of West Bengal
10 months
Hon’ble Supreme Court in yet another judgment dated 25.01.2023 arising out of SLP No.6690-2022 titled Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh has granted bail in a case registered under the NDPS Act where the accused alongwith co-accused was found in possession of ‘commercial’ quantity of Ganja and had been behind bars since the last two and a half years while observing that in the absence of any criminal antecedents, the conditions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act could be dispensed with at that stage, particularly when there was delay in conclusion of trial.
Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case particularly the long custody of the petitioner i.e. more than 2 years & 10 months and the fact that only 3 PWs out of cited 17 PWs have been examined so far, the petition merits acceptance and is hereby accepted.
The petition, as such, is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
It is, however, directed that in case the petitioner is found to be indulging in similar offence again, the prosecution would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.