Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Alias Happy vs State Of Punjab on 22 April, 2024
MOHIT 2024.04.22 17:58 2024:PHHC:053984 CRM-M-10737-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 240 CRM-M-10737-2024 Date of Decision:-22.04.2024 HARPREET ALIAS HAPPY beeen Petitioner Versus STATEOF PUNJAB ----------sSsSsSsS Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN 3 2 3 3k Present: Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Randhir Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab. 3 2 3 3k ALOK JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. The present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.56 dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure P-1) under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station SBS Nagar, Nawanshahar, Disrict SBS Nagar.
2. Learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in Court today, which is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that as per FSL report the total recovery was 12.09 grams, which apparently is lower than the commercial quantity and moreso, all the prosecution witnesses have been examined, which demonstrates that that the petitioner would not be in a position to influence any witness.
4. As regards the antecedents, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was wrongly nominated repeatedly by the Police on account of an animosity and he has already moved an application | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document MOHIT 2024.04.22 17:58 2024:PHHC:053984 CRM-M-10737-2024 in the trial Court for getting his mobile location verified on the date on which he has been shown to be arrested. He submits that there are 04 cases against the petitioner under the NDPS Act and one under IPC. However, in two cases under NDPS Act, the petitioner has been acquitted and in one FIR, the cancellation report has been filed. As regards the other two FIRs, the petitioner is on bail. He further submits that the entire proceedings are bad in the eyes of law as the mandatory provision of Section 42 and Section 50 NDPS Act were not complied with. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 19.05.2023.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel has submitted that the total recovery is commercial in nature and it is only a calculation error of which, the petitioner is trying to take the benefit of it. He further submits that, in fact, all the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is at the fag end and any delay now being caused is only on account of time taken by the petitioner who is the accused as the case is fixed for defence evidence.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated and relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of "Jagdev Singh @ Dev vs. State of Punjab" in CRM-M-14035-2022 dated 26.08.2022 to substantiate his arguments that it is highly improbable that a person will carry contraband, in a transparent box as the same could have invited the attention of anybody who passed by. It is positive case of the petitioner that he was not present on the spot and has been wrongly entangled in the present FIR, for which he is making earnest efforts to lead his defence.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that the petitioner is not in a position to tamper with the | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:053984 CRM-M-10737-2024 evidence/influence the witnesses at this stage, the petitioner is granted the concession of regular bail.
8. Without commenting upon the merits, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. He shall, however, be released on the following conditions:
** The petitioner shall declare his ordinary place of residence and the mobile number used by him.
** He will not switch off his mobile and in case of any technical glitch, he has to give an alternate number, which will be available in his absence.
** He will mark his presence before the SHO concerned, after every 15 days and in case the SHO refuses to mark his presence, he is permitted to make an application before the Illaga Magistrate, concermed.
** He will not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court, for which he will submit the copy of his passport also.
9. The petitioner shall abide by the terms and conditions as imposed in addition to Section 439 of Cr.P.C.
10. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
11. It is made clear that, in case, the petitioner is found involved in any such activity once again, the State is at liberty to promptly move an appropriate application for cancellation of bail detailing out the circumstances and violation of the condition(s) of bail.
3024.04.20 17:88 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:053984 CRM-M-10737-2024
12. Learned State counsel has prayed that appropriate directions be issued to the trial Court to complete the trial in a time bound manner.
13. In light of the above, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and not grant any unnecessary adjournment and decide the applications, if any, filed by the parties expeditiously.
(ALOK JAIN) JUDGE April 22, 2024 Mohit Bishnoi Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether Reportable:- Yes/No MOHIT 2024.04.22 17:58 | attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document