Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mani Ram vs State Of Haryana on 9 December, 2022
CRM-M-26285-2022 -1-
(210) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-26285-2022
Date of Decision: 09.12.2022
MANI RAM
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASJIT SINGH BEDI
Present: Mr. P.K. Rohilla, Advocate with
Ms. Poonam Rohilla, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Asst. A.G., Haryana.
****
JASJIT SINGH BEDI, J.
The prayer in the present petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is
for the grant of regular bail in case bearing FIR No.92 dated 13.02.2022
registered under Sections 20/25 of the NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station
Gannaur, Sonipat.
2. The brief facts of the case are that while the police party was on
patrolling duty for investigation, secret information was received that Mani
Ram (petitioner) son of Rajender, Rajpal @ Billu son of Sube Singh and
Vishal son of Hoshiyar @ Hoshiyare were moving around in the village
having a heavy quantity of charas with them in a black colour Tata Harrier
Car and if a barricading was done on the road from village Panchi to Rajpur
road, the three could be apprehended along with a vehicle and narcotics.
1 of 6
Based on the secret information, the Police party started checking the
vehicles and after some time the offending vehicle came there and was
stopped. Two youngsters alighted from the said vehicle while third one was
sitting on the driver seat of the car out of the said two boys, one boy
succeeded in fleeing away from the spot and the second was overpowered by
the police officials. On inquiry, he disclosed his name as Mani Ram
(petitioner) and the other who was driving the vehicle disclosed his Rajpal @
Billu. The boy who ran away from the spot was stated to be Vishal son of
Hoshiyar. The search of the vehicle was undertaken and 04 packets of charas
alias sulfa wrapped in a black colour plastic (Panni) were found in the dash
board of the car and on weighing turned out to be 1 kg. 800 grams.
3. The petitioner had sought the concession of bail and was granted
interim bail vide order dated 23.08.2022. The said order is reproduced
hereinbelow:-
"The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that
the petitioner could not be said to be in the conscious
possession as the recovery was effected from the
compartment of the vehicle and the owner, who was driving
the vehicle, is Rajpal @ Billu. The petitioner is said to be a
traveller in the said car. He relies upon the judgments
passed in the cases of 'Sukhdev Singh @ Sukh versus State
of Punjab (CRM-M-984-2021 decided on 19.04.2022) and
Jai Singh versus State of Haryana (CRM-M-38649-2019
decided on 09.01.2020)' to contend that the petitioner could
not be said to be in conscious possession of the contraband.
2 of 6
The learned counsel for the State submits that the
challan is yet to be filed in this case as the FSL report is still
awaited.
Adjourned to 14.11.2022.
In the meantime, the petitioner is directed to be
released on interim bail subject to the satisfaction of the
Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court concerned."
Thereafter, this matter has come up for final consideration.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the
petitioner had taken a lift from Rajpal @ Billu who was the driver and owner
of the vehicle. The recovery was effected from the glove box of the car and
the petitioner was unaware of the presence of the contraband. In fact, the
petitioner and his co-accused Rajpal @ Billu belong to the same village but
other than that, the petitioner has no connection with the main accused Rajpal
@ Billu. The petitioner cannot be said to be in conscious possession of the
contraband. Reliance is placed on the judgments in Sukhdev Singh @ Sukh
Versus State of Punjab, CRM-M-984-2021, decided on 19.04.2022 and Jai
Singh Versus State of Haryana, CRM-M-38649-2019, decided on
09.01.2020. The petitioner has been in custody since 13.02.2022. None of the
14 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far. Even otherwise, the
petitioner is a first time offender and therefore his clean antecedents also
entitle him to the grant of bail and a prima facie satisfaction under Section
37 of the NDPS Act can be recorded.
5. A reply dated 07.12.2022 has been filed on behalf of the
respondent-State by the learned State counsel by way of an affidavit of Atma
3 of 6
Ram, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ganaur, Sonipat and the same is
taken on record. While referring to the reply, he contends that the petitioner
was travelling in the vehicle which was owned and being driven by Rajpal
@ Billu. He was aware of the fact that contraband was lying in the glove box
as was apparent from the disclosure statements of the accused. During
investigation call detail records of all the accused were obtained as per which
they were found to be in constant touch with each other and the three accused
also belong to the same village Panchi Jattan, District Sonipat. The vehicle
stood in the name of the accused Rajpal @ Billu. He contends that in view of
the judgment in Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau,
Lucknow Versus Md. Nawaz Khan, 2021 AIR (SC) 4476, the petitioner was
not entitled to the grant of bail.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.
7. The petitioner, the owner of the vehicle Rajpal @ Billu and the
third accused Vishal (absconding) all belong to the same village. It is the
contention of the petitioner that he was known to Rajpal @ Billu being a co-
villager but was unaware of the contents of the glove box. The phone records
only established that the three accused knew each other. In the case of
Union of India through Narcotics Control Bureau, Lucknow Versus Md.
Nawaz Khan(supra) relied upon by the counsel for the State, the bail granted
was cancelled on account of the fact that the accused had travelled from
Nagaland to Uttar Pradesh with each other and otherwise were in telephonic
contact with each other. In the present case, however this is not so. As has
4 of 6
already been stated above, the petitioner and his co-accused are resident of
the same village and were arrested not far from their village.
This Court in the case of Sukhdev Singh @ Sukh Versus State
of Punjab (supra) had granted bail to a pillion rider when the recovery was
from under the seat of the driver/owner of the motorcycle. The case of the
petitioner is somewhat similar to that of Sukh Dev Singh.
In Jai Singh Versus State of Haryana (supra) this Court
granted bail to the petitioner therein when it was found that he was a traveller
in a canter from which contraband was recovered and which was being
driven by another accused.
8. Thus, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody
since 13.02.2022, none of the 14 prosecution witnesses have been examined
and the petitioner is a first-time offender, the further incarceration of the
petitioner is not required. Even otherwise, the rigors of Section 37 of the
NDPS Act can be relaxed to an extent in view of the attending facts and
circumstances.
9. Thus without commenting on the merits of the case, the present
petition is allowed and the petitioner-Mani Ram son of Rajender is ordered to
be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to
the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
10. The petitioner shall appear before the police station concerned
on the first Monday of every month till the conclusion of the Trial and inform
in writing each time that he is not involved in any other crime other than the
cases mentioned in this order.
5 of 6
11. In addition, the petitioner (or anyone on his behalf) shall prepare
an FDR in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and deposit the same with the Trial
Court. The same would be liable to be forfeited, as per law, in case of the
absence of the petitioner from Trial without sufficient cause.
12. The petition stands disposed of.
(JASJIT SINGH BEDI)
JUDGE
09.12.2022 Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
JITESH Whether reportable:- Yes/No
6 of 6
