Satnam Singh vs. State Of Hp

Held

The Court allowed the bail petition. Regarding the first issue, while the judgment does not explicitly detail the Court's finding on the deletion of Alprax from the list of controlled substances, it proceeds to grant bail. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument regarding Alprax but did not make it the sole basis for granting bail. On the second issue, the Court considered the prolonged period of incarceration of the petitioner (approximately 2.5 years) and the slow pace of the trial. The Court noted that the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future and that there was nothing on record to suggest that the delay was attributable to the petitioner. Citing pronouncements from the Supreme Court, including Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma, the Court opined that the constitutional guarantee of an expeditious trial cannot be diluted by applying the rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act in perpetuity. The Court found that the case for bail was made out, taking into account the length of custody and the progress of the trial. The petitioner was ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of ₹2,00,000/- with two sureties, one of whom must be a relative, and other conditions to ensure his presence during the trial.

Facts

The petitioner, Satnam Singh, sought bail under Section 439 of the Cr.PC in FIR No. 314 of 2021, registered under Sections 21, 22, and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution alleged his involvement in the business of prohibited drugs, leading to the recovery of 3600 Lomotil tablets and 298 Alprax tablets from him. Further investigation, based on the petitioner's disclosure, led to a raid at Deep Medicos in Delhi, where co-accused Parma Nand Pandey was found in charge. Recoveries were made from the shop, and it was found that the shop lacked a valid license. Investigations revealed that the GST registration and bank account for Deep Medicos were in the name of Dayanand Pandey, Parma Nand Pandey's brother, who was declared a proclaimed offender. The petitioner's bail application was previously dismissed by the Special Judge.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail considering the recovery of Alprax tablets, which the petitioner argues have been deleted from the list of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Rules, 1985, by a notification dated 26.02.2003, thereby limiting the case to Lomotil only? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail due to the prolonged period of incarceration (approximately 2.5 years) and the slow pace of the trial, with only 27 out of 43 witnesses examined? Petitioner's Arguments: - Alprax is no longer a controlled substance as per the Finance Ministry notification, thus the case should only pertain to Lomotil. - The petitioner has been in custody for a significant period, and the trial is progressing slowly, with a substantial number of witnesses yet to be examined. - The petitioner is not responsible for any delay in the trial. - Reliance is placed on Supreme Court judgments like Gopal Krishna Patra @ Gopalrusma, emphasizing bail on the grounds of prolonged custody and slow trial. Respondent's Arguments: - The petitioner is involved in a heinous crime that harms individuals, families, society, and the nation, and therefore, is not entitled to bail.