Petitioner was accused under section 22 of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances act 1985, after investigation, under section 439 of crpc bail was granted: high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

 on 09 07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH210 CRM M 24616 2021Date of Decision : July 06 2021RANJIT SINGH .....PetitionerVERSUSSTATE OF PUNJAB.....RespondentCORAM:HON BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURIPresent :Mr. Angel Walia Advocatefor the petitioner.Mr. Randhir Singh Thind DAG Punjab.Through Video ConferencingJ ASGURPREET SINGH PURI. J.The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of theCode of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner incase FIR No.40 dated 4.3.2021 under Section 22 of the Narcotic Drugsand Psychotropic Substances Act 1985 registered at Police StationSamrala Khanna Ludhiana.Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thepetitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case only because ofpolitical enmity as the petitioner does not belong to the ruling party. Hehas submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case andwhile he was travelling from Ludhiana to Amritsar the present false casewas planted upon him. He further submitted that the alleged recoveryfrom the petitioner has been shown to be 52.8 grams of Spasmo 26 gramsof Lomotil and 50.4 grams of Alprasafe and all these are of category of on 09 07 CRM M 24616 2021 2 non commercial quantity and therefore he has not been hit by the barcontained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Learned counsel hassubmitted that the petitioner is in custody since 4.3.2021 andinvestigation of the case is already complete and no recovery is to bemade from the petitioner. He has submitted that there are no badantecedents of the petitioner as he is not involved in any other case andthe trial would take long time and therefore he may be considered forgrant of regular bail.On the other hand Mr. Thind learned DAG Punjab hassubmitted that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody since 4.3.2021and the investigation of the case is already complete and no recovery is tobe made from the petitioner. However he has further submitted thatsince three categories of contraband were recovered from the petitioner the petitioner may not be considered for grant of regular bail. Although all these recoveries do not fall in the commercial quantity.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The custody period of the petitioner is not in dispute. It isalso not in dispute that the investigation of the case is already completeand the challan has already been presented. It is also not disputed by thelearned State counsel that the petitioner is not involved in any other case.So far as the recoveries of different salts are concerned all of themindividually fall in the non commercial quantity. Furthermore it is not the case of the State that in case thepetitioner is released on bail then he may influence any witness or maytamper with evidence or may flee from justice. on 09 07 CRM M 24616 2021 3 In view of the above and considering the totality of thecircumstances of the present case the present petition is allowed. Thepetitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing of bail bondsand surety bonds to the satisfaction of concerned Chief JudicialMagistrate Duty Magistrate.(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)July 06 2021 JUDGEajay 1Whether speaking reasoned.:Yes NoWhether Reportable.:Yes No 

Summary: A petition was filed Under section 439 of the code of criminal procedure i.e. Special powers of the High Court or Court of Session regarding bail and the High Court and the Court of Sessions have concurrent jurisdiction with regard to granting of bail. However, The petitioner was convicted under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985 i.e. where the contravention involves commercial quantity, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years and Punishment for contravention in relation to psychotropic substances. This judgment and final order were given in the high court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh on the 6th of July, 2021 in the case Ranjit Singh v/s state of Punjab CRM-M-24616-2021 by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri, the proceedings of the court was held in a virtual platform, Mr. Angel Walia represented the petitioner and Mr. Randhir Singh represented the state of Punjab.  The following are the facts of the case, The petitioner was accused under section 22 of the Narcotic Drugs and psychotropic substances act, 1985, and FIRno.40  on 4/03/2021 were filed against him at the police station Samrala, Khanna, Ludhiana. The counsel for the petitioner laid down before the courts that the petitioner while he was traveling from Ludhiana to Amritsar he had been falsely implicated and the reason behind this is because he is not a member of the ruling party. According to the counsel the petitioner has not been involved in any other case previously. Further, the counsel explains the following is in the category of non-commercial quantity consisting of  52.8 grams of spasmo, 26 grams of Lomotil, and 50.4 grams of alprasafe. It has been submitted before the courts that all of the above is the recovery made from the petitioner and this is the reason he has not been hit by the bar contained under section 37 of the NDPS act i.e.  “where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offense and that he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail”.  According to the counsel of the petitioner, even after the completion of the investigation, the petitioner was held in custody since 4/03/2021. Now the according to the state of Punjab, the counsel submitted that the petitioner has been confined under the law and it is legal and the investigation has been complete as well and the custody was since 4/04/2021. According to the respondent, the petitioner has been in possession of three categories of contraband i.e. goods that have been imported or exported illegally. And therefore, regular bail should not be permitted to the petitioner.