Jagseer Singh vs State Of Haryana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2996 P&H

CRM-M-34386-2021                                                        1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                        CHANDIGARH

                                              CRM-M-34386-2021
                                              Date of decision : 14.10.2021

Jagseer

                                                     ... Petitioner

                   Versus

State of Haryana

                                                     ... Respondent

CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present:     Ms.Veena Hooda, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr.Manish Dadwal, AAG, Haryana.

                                 (Through Video Conferencing)

VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)

This is a first petition filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for

grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.66 dated 15.03.2021

registered under Sections 15, 61, 85 of the NDPS Act, at Police Station

Ukalana, District Hisar, Haryana.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case, as per the prosecution version, the present petitioner was

apprehended with Doda Post (poppy husk) weighing 2.30 kgs on

15.03.2021. She has further submitted that in the present case, the said

recovery is only marginally higher more than the small quantity, which is

upto 1 kg. and is much lesser than the commercial quantity, which is than

beyond 50 kgs. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is in custody

since 15.03.2021 and challan has already been filed on 07.06.2021. There

are as many as 16 witnesses and none of them have been examined and even 1 of 3

charges have not been framed in the present case. It has been submitted that

trial is likely to take some time, more so in view of the pandemic situation.

It has also been submitted that all the prosecution witnesses are official

witnesses, therefore, question of influencing them would not arise. It has

further been argued that even with respect to the alleged recovery, the same

has been effected jointly from the petitioner and one Jaspreet.

Learned State counsel has opposed the petition and has

submitted that the present petitioner has two other cases pending against

him and in one case, the petitioner has been convicted.

In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that

as far as the conviction is concerned, the same was for a period of 4 months

and the petitioner has already undergone the same and in the other two cases

also, the petitioner has been released on bail. It is further argued that in all

the said cases, quantity involved was non-commercial. Reliance has been

placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd.

Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another", 2012 (2) SCC 382 to contend

that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen 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 hereinbelow:-

"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

2 of 3

the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, more

so the fact that the recovery in the present case is 2.30 kgs of poppy husk

which is marginally higher than the small quantity and much lower than the

commercial quantity, and more so, the petitioner has been in custody since

15.03.2021 and the challan has already been presented in the present case,

and there are 16 witnesses none of which have been examined and trial is

likely to take time, more so in view of the pandemic situation and more so

all the witnesses in the present case are official witnesses and thus, the

question of influencing the said witnesses does not arise and even the

recovery in the present case is effected jointly from the petitioner and one

Jaspreet, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be

released on bail on his furnishing bail / surety bonds to the satisfaction of

the concerned trial Court/ Duty Magistrate and subject to the fact that he is

not required in any other case.

However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final

expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed

independently of the observations made in the present case which are only

for the purpose of adjudicating the present bail application.

                                                   (VIKAS BAHL)
                                                       JUDGE

October 14, 2021
Davinder Kumar

                 Whether speaking / reasoned                      Yes/No
                 Whether reportable                               Yes/No




                                    3 of 3