Pendency of other cases can’t be taken as bar to grant bail: Punjab and Haryana HC

Read Judgement: Sarmail Singh @ Shaila v. State of Punjab 

Vivek Gupta

Chandigarh, July 19, 2021: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that  pendency of other cases cannot be taken as a bar to grant bail.

The High Court was hearing a regular bail plea in a narcotics case.

The petitioner Sarmail Singh along with one Gajjan Singh were found in possession of 400gm and 65 gm of heroin respectively during a raid. The petitioner was behind bars for last over one year after his arrest in January last year under Sections 21/25 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered in Mohali, Punjab.

During the hearing, the petitioner raised several issues pertaining to procedural lapses relating to his arrest. 

Counsel for the State, in reply, has submitted that proper procedure under Section 50 of the NDPS Act was followed as the Deputy Superintendent of Police was called at the spot and in his presence, 400 grams of heroin was recovered.

Counsel for the State also submitted that the petitioner is involved in four other FIRs filed in 2015, 2017 and 2018. However, the petitioner is on bail in those cases.

He, however, did not dispute that the chargesheet was presented on 11.06.2020 and till date charges have not been framed against the accused persons, and that there are total 19 prosecution witnesses cited as witness in the case.

A bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan while deciding the matter took into account the Supreme Court’s judgment in ‘Prabhakar Tewari vs State of Uttar Pradesh’ where it is held that pendency of other cases cannot be taken as a bar to grant bail. 

Allowing the bail application, the Bench observed, “Points taken by the petitioner could not repelled by the prosecution regarding the discrepancies in the documents prepared at the spot; the affidavit of independent witness and the Certificate given by the Panchayat; the manner in which the investigation is conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has only verified one document and has not signed any other documents; all the memos are typed documents and in some documents, FIR number is blank and filled by Pen and in some documents, it is typed by mentioning the FIR number; the discrepancies in the order of the Illaqa Magistrate and the FSL report…….petitioner is in custody for the last 01 year, 05 months; till date even charges have not been framed and therefore, no PW has been examined; the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required.”

However, the high court clarified that the observations made are only for the purpose of deciding the bail application of the petitioner and will have no bearing on the merits of the case.