In CRM-M-34488-2022 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- Further incarceration of accused would be violative of his right enshrined under Article 21 of Constitution: P&H HC grants bail to NDPS accused who was in custody for more than 2 years
Justice Vikas Bahl [23-11-2022]

Read Order: Sandeep Singh @ Sonu v. State of Punjab 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, November 26, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted regular bail to the petitioner in an FIR registered under Sections 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985 and Sections 307, 427, 270 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 considering his two-year long incarceration as also the lack of his criminal antecedents.

“The petitioner is stated to be not involved in any other case and further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of the right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India”, the Bench of Justice Vikas Bahl held. 

The case of the prosecution was that the recovery from the said petitioner (therein) was of commercial quantity of contraband. 

It was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner was in custody since May 2020 (more than 2 years and 6 months), the investigation was complete and chargesheet was presented. It was further argued that there were 14 prosecution witnesses out of which none were examined as yet, thus, the conclusion of trial was likely to take time. It was further submitted that the petitioner lacked criminal antecedents. 

It was also the Counsel’s case that further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of the right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

On the other hand, the State Counsel opposed the present petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and submitted that the recovery effected from the petitioner and his co-accused was of commercial quantity, thus, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would apply. 

After hearing the parties and considering the petitioner’s incarceration period as also the lack of his criminal precedents, the Court observed that further incarceration of the petitioner would be violative of the right of the petitioner enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 

Thus, keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Further, the Court imposed such conditions which met the object of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. 

Accordingly, the present petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to him not being required in any other case. 

The Court directed that the petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial and will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s). It was also directed that the petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted and he shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected.

“The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence”, the Bench added.