ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J

1. Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail in FIR No.3 dated 26.02.2018 under Sections 21, 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station State Special Operation Cell, Amritsar, District Intelligence Wing (CID), Amritsar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order dated 01.10.2019 passed in CRM-M-29738-2018, vide which co-accused Harpreet Singh @ Chintu was granted the concession of regular bail, by passing the following order: -

“...On 24.07.2018, the following order was passed: “Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is continuously in judicial custody since 2014 and on 05.03.2018, he was brought on production warrants in present FIR and his disclosure statement was recorded, however, in pursuance thereof, no recovery was effected. It is further submitted that vide order dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in CRM No.5297 of 2018 filed in CRA-D No.137-DB of 2018, the sentence of the petitioner was suspended in FIR No.93 dated 20.01.2018, where he was convicted under Section 21 of the NDPS Act for a period of 14 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-, on the ground that as per Section 42 of the NDPS Act, the investigation was not conducted by an officer of the rank of ASI or above.

Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that on the very next day i.e. 25.04.2018, a DDR No.26 was registered in the aid of Section 27-A of the NDPS Act and the petitioner was implicated in the present FIR. It is further submitted that as per the allegation in the FIR, the petitioner was not named and the allegations are against 02 persons namely Manmeet Singh and Amandeep. Manmeet Singh was arrested at the spot whereas the other persons Amandeep ran away and the police has recovered huge amount from Manmeet Singh and thereafter, on the disclosure statement of said Manmeet Singh, 04 persons were nominated in FIR including the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner is either on bail in the other FIRs or has been acquitted/discharged.

Counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Sukhbir Singh, has submitted that as per the disclosure statement of Manmeet Singh, it has come that he has given huge amount to the petitioner, who has sent the same to Dubai for illegal drug trade and for this purpose, he was using a mobile phone inside the Jail.

The Investigating Officer, however, could not give a satisfactory reply if any, FIR regarding a jail offence for possessing a mobile phone was registered against the petitioner after 05.03.2018 till granting of bail by this Court in the aforesaid case. It is also not clear how the alleged mobile phone used by the petitioner came in his possession as no such complaint was lodged before the jail authorities.

In view of the same, the Investigating Officer is directed to file a specific affidavit along with the Custody Certificate of the petitioner on the next date of hearing.

List again on 13.08.2018.”

In pursuance thereof, the affidavit of DSP, State Special Operations Cell, Amritsar, was filed in which, it is stated that coaccused Manmeet Singh was collecting the money from the smugglers and was sending the same through hawala network for procuring the drugs.

It is further stated in the affidavit that from the petitioner, no mobile phone was recovered and, therefore, Section 42-A of the Prison Act invoked and after forensic science analysis of the mobile phone used by co-accused Manmeet Singh, it was found that no data can be recovered as the phone was formatted.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was in judicial custody since 2014 as he was involved in some other cases, out of which, he stands acquitted in three FIRs i.e. FIR Nos. 166, 325 and 110 and he has been granted bail in two other FIRs.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that even in a case where the petitioner has been convicted for a period of 14 years in FIR No. 93, his sentence has been suspended by a Division Bench of this Court in CRA-D-137-DB-2018.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that it is the own case of the prosecution that the petitioner was brought on production when he was arrested on 09.03.2018 and nothing was recovered from him during investigation.

It is further submitted that now the statement of PW-1/IO Inspector Vikrant Sharma has been recorded by the trial Court and in the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that no witness has named the petitioner as accused during investigation and the petitioner was already in Central Jail, Amritsar and no mobile phone or SIM card was recovered from him during investigation. This witness, in cross-examination, has further stated that no evidence has surfaced during investigation conducted by him qua involvement or conspiracy or abetment of the petitioner with any other accused in the present case.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, thus, argued that the petitioner, who has been arrested in the present case on the basis of the disclosure statement of a co-accused, is not found to be involved in the present case as per the statement of PW-1/IO Inspector Vikrant Sharma himself...”

3. Learned counsel submits that though as per allegations in the FIR, he was named in the secret information, however, he was not arrested at the spot and from co-accused Manmeet Singh @ Ladi, who was arrested at the spot, some money was recovered and he has already been granted the concession of regular bail vide order dated 11.12.2019 passed in CRM-M29546-2019 and even after arrest of the petitioner, no narcotic substance was recovered from him. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years, 01 month and 06 days and out of total 26 prosecution witnesses, 08 PWs have been examined so far, therefore, it will take some time in conclusion of the trial.

4. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate in the Court today, which reflects that the petitioner is in custody for the last 03 years, 01 month and 06 days, though he is involved in some other cases under NDPS Act, however, is on bail in some cases.

5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on merits of the case and considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail subject to furnishing his bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, concerned.

6. Petition is disposed of.