Punjab-Haryana High Court
Divya vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055632
CRM-M-18936-2024 2024:PHHC:055632
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205
RM-M-18936-2024
C
Date of decision: 24.04.2024
Divya ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY ***** Present : Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate and Ms. Akanksha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G., Haryana ***** AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.376, dated 01.07.2023, registeredunderSections21oftheNDPSAct,1985(Section27-A/29addedlater on) at Police Station Ambala Cantt., DistrictAmbala. 2. Learnedcounselcontendsthatthepetitionerisincustodyforthelast 8 months. Her name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi. He relies upon judgment passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (1) RCR (Crl.) 1. No recovery has been effected from her and she has been falsely implicatedinthecase.Thesaidco-accusedfromwhomrecoveryof268gramsof heroin was effected, has since been granted bail, after a custody of 8 monthsby this Court vide order dated 19.03.2024, Annexure P-3. Charges were framed on 23.01.2024, however, none out of 20prosecutionwitnesseshavebeenexamined. He also relies on the order passedbythisCourtinSandeepKumar@Gogivs. 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 06:58:17 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055632 CRM-M-18936-2024 2024:PHHC:055632 -2- State of Haryana in CRM-M-24505-2022 decided on 07.12.2022, wherein the petitionerwasgrantedbailafteracustodyofalmost9months,onhishavingbeen implicatedonthebasisofdisclosurestatementandnorecoverywaseffectedfrom him. The petitioner is involved in one more case, wherein she is on bail and alleged recovery was 8 grams of heroin. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in MaulanaMohd.AmirRashadivs.StateofU.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. 3. The custody certificate dated 22.04.2024, filed by learned State counselistakenonrecord,asperwhich,thepetitionerisbehindbarsfor7months and 29 days. 4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the petitioner was specifically named by the co-accused from whomthecommercial quantity of contraband was recovered and is involved in 1 more case under the NDPS Act. He is however unable to controvert the submissions with regard to stageofthecase,co-accusedhasbeengrantedbailandthepetitionerbeingonbail in the other case. 5. Heard. 6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi (supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the accusedinthecaseinwhichhehasbeenchargedandothercircumstancessuchas possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc." 8. Consideringthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,inparticularthat the petitioner is in custody for last 7 months and 29 days; no recovery effected 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 06:58:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055632 CRM-M-18936-2024 2024:PHHC:055632 -3- fromher;isonbailinanothercaseundertheNDPSAct;co-accusedhavingbeen granted bail;chargeswereframedon23.01.2024;outofatotalof20prosecution witnesses,nonehasbeenexaminedsofar;thetrialislikelytotakeaconsiderable time,thusherfurtherincarcerationwouldbeviolativeofherrightenshrinedunder Article 21 of the Constitution ofIndiaandtherigorsofSection37ofNDPSAct canbedilutedbearinginmindtherighttoaspeedytrial,thus,thepresentpetition for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed. 9. As a result, the present petition isallowed.Thepetitionerisordered to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction oftrialCourt/DutyMagistrateconcernedandsubjecttohernotbeing required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:- (i) he petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the T trial. (ii) he petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution T witnesses. (iii) T he petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court. (iv) T he petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which, she is an accused, or for commission of which she is suspected of. (v) he petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce, T threaten or promise to anypersonacquaintedwiththefactsof thecasesoastodissuadehim/herfromdisclosingsuchfactsto the Court or to any police officerortamperwiththeevidence in any manner. (vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse her liberty. (vii) The petitioner shall furnish her addressandmobilenumberto theTrialCourtforthwithandshallnotchangethesametillthe conclusionofthetrialandincaseforanyreason,thepetitioner seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done onlywithpriorintimationtothelearnedTrialCourt,statingthe reason for the same. (viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court. (ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 06:58:18 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055632 CRM-M-18936-2024 2024:PHHC:055632 -4- condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner. 10. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order. 11. Inviewoftheabove,itisclarifiedthattheobservationsmadeherein are limited for thepurposeofpresentproceedingsandwouldnotbeconstruedas anopiniononthemeritsofthecaseandthetrialwouldproceedindependentlyof the aforesaid observations. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JUDGE 2 4.04.2024 Hemant Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 25-04-2024 06:58:18 :::