Sukhwant Singh vs. State Of Punjab

Facts

The petitioner, Sukhwant Singh, proprietor of M/s Simran Medical Store, sought regular bail in FIR No. 306 dated 19.09.2019, registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act. The allegation was that he was found in his chemist shop without a valid license. The petitioner claimed to possess a valid drug license from 29.06.2016 to 28.06.2021, which the State did not dispute. He also presented a GST invoice dated 01.09.2019 showing purchase of tablets and capsules, including Alprazolam, from M/s Fortune Labs. The petitioner had been in custody for approximately 7 months and 22 days and had no other pending cases. The State opposed the bail application, but their affidavit did not specifically address the validity of the petitioner's drug license.

Held

The Court granted regular bail to the petitioner. The primary reasoning was the petitioner's custody period of approximately 7 months and 22 days and the observation that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission of a valid drug license and a GST invoice as evidence of legitimate business activity. While the State opposed the bail, their affidavit did not specifically dispute the validity of the drug license. The Court emphasized that keeping the petitioner behind bars would serve no useful purpose. Therefore, without commenting on the merits of the case to avoid prejudicing either side, the petition was allowed. The petitioner was ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in FIR No. 306 dated 19.09.2019, registered under Section 22 of the NDPS Act, considering his period of custody and the nature of allegations? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that he possessed a valid drug license for his chemist shop, which was not disputed by the State. He also submitted a GST invoice as proof of legitimate purchase of medicines. Furthermore, he highlighted his custody period of approximately 7 months and 22 days and the absence of any other pending cases against him, arguing that continued detention would serve no useful purpose. Respondent's arguments: The State opposed the bail application. However, their affidavit did not specifically refute the petitioner's claim of possessing a valid drug license.