2020 (12) TMI 144 - HC - Indian Laws

Grant of Regular Bail - petitioner is in judicial custody for the last more than one year and four months and despite the fact that charges were framed on 18.12.2019, out of total 21 prosecution witnesses, not even a single witness has been examined till date - HELD THAT - Learned State counsel has not disputed the fact that petitioner is on bail all the three other FIRs as well as the fact that petitioner is in judicial custody for the last more than one year and four months and despite the fact that charges were framed in December, 2019, out of total 21 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the instant 3 of 4 petition is allowed - The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate, concerned.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Grant of regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a case involving charges under NDPS Act, 1985 and IPC sections 420, 379, 411.

Analysis:

1. Second Petition for Regular Bail:
The judgment deals with the second petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner. The case involves FIR No. 170 dated 26.06.2019, registered under Section 22(c) and 27A of the NDPS Act, 1985, and Sections 420, 379, 411 of the IPC at Police Station City Ratia, District Fatehabad. The first petition was dismissed as withdrawn, leading to the filing of the present petition.

2. Grounds for Bail:
The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner has been in judicial custody for over a year and four months. Despite charges being framed in December 2019, none of the 21 prosecution witnesses have been examined. It was highlighted that a co-accused had already been granted bail, and the recovery in question may not fall under the commercial quantity category based on legal precedents.

3. Co-Accused and Confessional Statements:
The petitioner's involvement in three more FIRs was mentioned, with bail granted in those cases. The counsel referred to a case law to argue that confessional statements in NDPS cases are not admissible against other accused. The admissibility of the co-accused's confession against the petitioner was stated to be a matter for trial.

4. Judicial Custody and Examination of Witnesses:
The State counsel did not dispute the petitioner's prolonged judicial custody or the lack of witness examination despite charges being framed. The petitioner was on bail in other cases, with only one involving a recovery of non-commercial quantity of contraband.

5. Decision and Order:
The Court, without commenting on the case's merits, allowed the petition for regular bail. The petitioner was directed to be released on regular bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, Duty Magistrate, or Illaqa Magistrate concerned.

This comprehensive analysis outlines the key aspects of the judgment regarding the grant of regular bail in a case involving NDPS Act and IPC sections, highlighting the grounds for bail, co-accused involvement, admissibility of confessional statements, judicial custody, and the final decision of the Court.