233 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA PARAMJIT SINGH ALIAS PAMMA STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. Present: Mr. Sahil Puri, Advocate and Mr. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARPREET SINGH BRAR 1. This is the fourth regular bail in case bearing FIR No. 22/29/61/85 of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station Kapurthala. 2. The brief facts are that along with other police officials was present at T connection with picketing of road and checking the vehilcles, one car bearing No.PB-09-K-6236 Make Indica torch light asked the driver to thrown the plastic bag then the driver thrown the bag inside the trees. his name as Paramjit Singh that the bag which was thrown contains the intoxicant tablets. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH PARAMJIT SINGH ALIAS PAMMA V/S PUNJAB HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Mr. Sahil Puri, Advocate and Mr. Vijay Kumar Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL) This is the fourth petition filed under Section regular bail in case bearing FIR No.132 dated of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station The brief facts are that on 11.12.2019, along with other police officials was present at T connection with picketing of road and checking the vehilcles, one car bearing 6236 Make Indica came. The police party torch light asked the driver to stop the car, who thrown the plastic bag towards backside. Upon suspicion, the car was stopped then the driver thrown the bag inside the trees. T his name as Paramjit Singh alias Pamma (petitioner herein that the bag which was thrown contains the intoxicant tablets. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-12782-2025 Date of decision: 23.05.2025 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT HARPREET SINGH BRAR Advocate for the petitioner. under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking dated 11.12.2019 under Sections of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short “NDPS Act’) registered at Police Station Sadar Phagwara, District 11.12.2019, when ASI Mangat Gupta along with other police officials was present at T-Point Madhopur in connection with picketing of road and checking the vehilcles, one car bearing came. The police party with the gesture of the car, who after opening the window, Upon suspicion, the car was stopped, Thereafter, the driver disclosed Pamma (petitioner herein), who disclosed that the bag which was thrown contains the intoxicant tablets. Upon search of MANISHA 2025.05.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-12782 the bag, 920 loose tablets recovered. Subsequently, the FIR 3. The third petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.10.2024; second petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2024 and the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.01.2024. petitioner submits that the present petition has been filed with the change in circumstances as judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 08 are yet to be examined. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR ( tablets could have been easily planted since they were loose. clear violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act, since no offer was given to the petitioner, while conducting his personal search. in spite of the fact that the FIR ( than 05 years have passed, the prosecution has failed to conclude its evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 26 days. 5. Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and by the petitioner on the ground that the record to prove his complicity. cases also. However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is behind the bars the last more than 12782-2025 2 the bag, 920 loose tablets containing the salt “Tramadol Hydrochloride” Subsequently, the FIR (supra) was recovered. The third petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.10.2024; second petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2024 and the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.01.2024. submits that the present petition has been filed with the change in circumstances as now the case of the petitioner is now squarely covered by the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal f West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 08 are yet to be examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR ( tablets could have been easily planted since they were loose. clear violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act, since no offer was given to the petitioner, while conducting his personal search. te of the fact that the FIR (supra) was registered on years have passed, the prosecution has failed to conclude its evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record and per contra, by the petitioner on the ground that there is sufficient material available on record to prove his complicity. Further, the petitioner is involved in other However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is the last more than 01 year, 08 months containing the salt “Tramadol Hydrochloride” were was recovered. The third petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 14.10.2024; second petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 01.04.2024 and the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.01.2024. Learned counsel for the submits that the present petition has been filed with the change in the case of the petitioner is now squarely covered by the Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal f West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023 till date, out of 12 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 08 are yet to be examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR (supra) as the intoxicant tablets could have been easily planted since they were loose. Further, there is a clear violation of Section 50 of NDPS Act, since no offer was given to the petitioner, while conducting his personal search. Learned counsel submits that ) was registered on 11.12.2019 and more years have passed, the prosecution has failed to conclude its evidence. The petitioner is behind the bars for the last more than 01 year, 08 months and Learned State counsel produces the custody certificate of the per contra, opposes the prayer made re is sufficient material available on r, the petitioner is involved in other However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is months and 26 days. MANISHA 2025.05.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-12782 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner for the last more than 01 year and 08 months 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and subsequently, charges were framed. of out of 12 witnesses cited by the prosecution, so far. The petitioner has already undergone a period of 01 year, 0 and 26 days of custody and the him. 7. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023 of custody on ac quantity of contraband. judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in @ Aliul Islam @ Alius Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 000736/2024, Debrata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14970-2023, Santarul Islam @ Santa Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 13169/2023, Indrajit Mondal @ Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8512/2023, Narjul Islam @ Najbul Hoque Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14172/2023, Subhashri Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15284/2023, Mithun Sk. & Anr. Vs. No.016598/2023, SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin SK. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.003402/2024, Indadul Shah Vs. The State of West Bengal 12782-2025 3 Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner for the last more than 01 year and 08 months. 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and subsequently, charges were framed. The trial of the case has not made much progress out of 12 witnesses cited by the prosecution, The petitioner has already undergone a period of 01 year, 0 days of custody and the delay in conclusion of trial cannot be attributed A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No(s).12788/2023 released the accused on bail after completion of 18 months of custody on account of protracted trial in NDPS case involving commercial quantity of contraband. Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in @ Aliul Islam @ Alius Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 000736/2024, Debrata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 2023, Santarul Islam @ Santa Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 13169/2023, Indrajit Mondal @ Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8512/2023, Narjul Islam @ Najbul Hoque Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14172/2023, Subhashri Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15284/2023, Mithun Sk. & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.016598/2023, SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin SK. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.003402/2024, Indadul Shah Vs. The State of West Bengal Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner remained behind the bars The final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and subsequently, The trial of the case has not made much progress as out out of 12 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 04 have been examined The petitioner has already undergone a period of 01 year, 08 months ion of trial cannot be attributed A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Nandlal Mondal @ Abhay Mondal Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) released the accused on bail after completion of 18 months count of protracted trial in NDPS case involving commercial Reliance in this regard can also be placed upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Md. Aliul Islam @ Aliul Islam @ Alius Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 000736/2024, Debrata Mondal Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 2023, Santarul Islam @ Santa Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 13169/2023, Indrajit Mondal @ Piglu Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8512/2023, Narjul Islam @ Najbul Hoque Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 14172/2023, Subhashri Das @ Rana @ Subhoshree Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15284/2023, The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.016598/2023, SK. Nasiruddin @ Nasirddin SK. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No.003402/2024, Indadul Shah Vs. The State of West Bengal MANISHA 2025.05.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-12782 SLP(Crl.) No. 12670/2023 , Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh Vs. Union of India, Ripon Seikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 16663/2023, Moidul Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl).No. 15668/ 2023, Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 2354/2024, Saddam Hossain Vs. State of West Be SLP(Crl.) No. 15496/2023, Bijon SK @ Golam Murselim Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 6046/2024 Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8823/2019. 8. Further, the c of trial and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of the petitioner-accused. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 2 9. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR SC 1648 the concept of fairness enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India would trump the bar on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, has opined as follows: 12782-2025 4 SLP(Crl.) No. 12670/2023 , Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh Vs. Union of Ripon Seikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 16663/2023, Moidul Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl).No. 15668/ 2023, Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 2354/2024, Saddam Hossain Vs. State of West Be SLP(Crl.) No. 15496/2023, Bijon SK @ Golam Murselim Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP (Crl.) No. 6046/2024 and Subhas Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 8823/2019. Further, the culpability, if any, would be determined at the time and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of accused. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR SC 1648 the concept of fairness enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India p the bar on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, has opined as follows: “20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, where the court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused’s guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials SLP(Crl.) No. 12670/2023 , Hanef Kharsani @ Hanef Sheikh Vs. Union of Ripon Seikh & Ors. Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 16663/2023, Moidul Sarkar Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl).No. 15668/ 2023, Saniya Bibi @ Soniya Bibi Vs. The State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 2354/2024, Saddam Hossain Vs. State of West Bengal SLP(Crl.) No. 15496/2023, Bijon SK @ Golam Murselim Vs. The State of Subhas Vs. The State of West ulpability, if any, would be determined at the time and as such, no useful purpose will be served by further detention of accused. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of 1 of the Constitution of India. A two Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR SC 1648 has held that the concept of fairness enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India p the bar on granting bail in cases involving commercial quantity of contraband, as stipulated by Section 37 of the NDPS Act. Speaking through Justice S. Ravindra Bhat, has opined as follows: “20. The standard to be considered therefore, is one, court would look at the material in a broad manner, and reasonably see whether the accused’s guilt may be proved. The judgments of this court have, therefore, emphasized that the satisfaction which courts are expected to record, i.e., that the accused may not be guilty, is only prima facie, based on a reasonable reading, which does not call for meticulous examination of the materials MANISHA 2025.05.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment CRM-M-12782 10. In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, witho Paramjit Singh @ Pamma on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court 11. Nothing observed expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial. May 23, 2025 manisha (i) (ii) 12782-2025 5 collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Rattan Malik). Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in trial, cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). factors the court is of the opinion that in the case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. 21. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not concluded in time, the injustice wrecked on the individual is immeasurable. Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling.” added) In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner Paramjit Singh @ Pamma is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court. Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it may prejudice the trial. (HARPREET SINGH BRAR Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable collected during investigation (as held in Union of India v. Grant of bail on ground of undue delay in cannot be said to be fettered by Section 37 of the Act, given the imperative of Section 436A which is applicable to offences under the NDPS Act too (ref. Satender Kumar Antil supra). Having regard to these factors the court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail. Before parting, it would be important to reflect that laws which impose stringent conditions for grant of bail, may be necessary in public interest; yet, if trials are not time, the injustice wrecked on the individual Jails are overcrowded and their living conditions, more often than not, appalling.” (emphasis In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. ut commenting upon the merits of the case, the petitioner- is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Illaqa hereinabove shall be construed to be expression of an opinion by this Court on merits of the case. The learned Court below is directed to proceed with the matter on its own merits, lest it HARPREET SINGH BRAR) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No In view the discussion above, the present petition is allowed. MANISHA 2025.05.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticiy of this order/judgment