Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pargat Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141103
CRM-M-20849-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.228 CRM-M-20849-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 28.10.2024
Pargat Singh ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate for
Mr. Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Thind, DAG, Punjab.
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.112 dated 10.11.2018, under Sections 22 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Tarshika, District Amritsar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that it is alleged that there was a recovery of 60 tablets containing salt Tramadol from the petitioner which is non-commercial quantity. He further submits that the petitioner was granted bail on 31.01.2019, however, he absented due to which, non-bailable warrants were issued against him on 18.11.2021. He was declared proclaimed offender on 09.01.2023 and re-arrested on 07.07.2023. He submits that it was due to mis-communication that the petitioner was unable to join the proceedings and subsequently, due to out- break of corona virus, it resulted in the non-appearance of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner 1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 23:11:51 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141103 CRM-M-20849-2024 (O&M) 2 has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 06 months and 15 days.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has filed custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 06 months and 15 days and there is one another case registered against the petitioner, in which he is on bail. He on instructions from the concerned police official submits that charges were framed on 15.01.2019 and out of total 09 prosecution witnesses, 02 witnesses have been examined.
4. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
5. Admittedly, the charges were framed on 15.01.2019 and out of a total of 09 prosecution witnesses, 02 witnesses have been examined till date. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 06 months and 15 days and there is one another case registered against him, in which he is on bail.
6. It would be unjust to keep him behind bars looking at the condition of the jails which are not conducive for rehabilitation process and detaining the accused persons in jails would also tantamounts to violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the judgment of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, (2018) 3 SCC 22".
2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 23:11:52 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141103 CRM-M-20849-2024 (O&M) 3
7. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"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 accused in the case in which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
8. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and another", 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.
9. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be established during the course of the trial. The conclusion of the trial will take a considerable time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any purpose.
3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 23:11:52 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141103 CRM-M-20849-2024 (O&M) 4
10. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(I) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(II) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(s).
(III) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted. (IV) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is suspected.
(V) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
12. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 23:11:52 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141103 CRM-M-20849-2024 (O&M) 5 Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
28.10.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 01-11-2024 23:11:52 :::