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
55 paragraphs · 712 wordsFIR No.
Dated
Police Station
Section/s
148
31.08.2019
Division No.3, District Ludhiana
21 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral)
The instant petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of regular bail in respect of aforementioned FIR.
As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner was apprehended by the police while in possession of 1,24,000 intoxicant tablets of ‘tramadol hydrochloride’.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been falsely 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 and 8 months and since the trial is proceeding at snail’s pace, the petitioner cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period.
Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since it is a case, wherein the petitioner was caught red-handed while in possession of ‘commercial’ quantity of contraband, no case for grant of bail is made out. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last more than 2 years and 8 months. It has also been informed that the petitioner happens to be involved in one more case registered for offence under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act. It has also been informed that till date 1 PW out of the cited 17 PWs has been examined.
This Court has considered the rival submissions addressed before this Court.
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 Number
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 and 7 months
Criminal Appeal No. 668/2020
12.10.2020
Amit Singh Moni Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
2 years and 7 months
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 5769/2022
01.08.2022
Nitish Adhikary @ Bapan Vs. the State of West Bengal
1 year and 7 months
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4173 of 2022
04.08.2022
Shariful Islam @ Sarif Vs. the State of West Bengal
1 year and 6 months
Criminal Appeal No. 1169 of 2022
05.08.2022
Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma Vs. Union of India
2 years 1 month and 17 days
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 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 and 8 months
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) 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 25.1.2023 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 long custody of the petitioner, who is a lady, and also that conclusion of trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as only 1 PW out of the cited 17 PWs has 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 her 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.