Gaurav Alias Gora vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 1046 P&H

      CRM-M-7768-2022                                        -1-

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH
215
                                                 CRM-M-7768-2022
                                                 Decided on : 28.02.2022

Gaurav @ Gora
                                                                 . . . Petitioner
                                   Versus
State of Haryana
                                                             . . . Respondent
CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
                          (Through Video Conferencing)
PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

             Mr. Munish Sharma, AAG, Haryana.
                                ****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 514 dated

14.12.2021 under Sections 17 and 20 of the Narcotic Drugs and

Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 registered at Police Station Sadar

Sonepat, District Sonepat.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the

present case, the alleged recovery made from the petitioner is of non

commercial quantity. It is further submitted that the recovery of 206 gms.

of charas has been made whereas the commercial quantity starts from 1

Kg. It is also submitted that as per the prosecution case, 27 gms of smack

has been recovered whereas the commercial quantity is 250 gms. It is

further submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.12.2021

and the challan in the present case has already been presented and there

1 of 3

are as many as 17 witnesses out of whom none have been examined and

thus, the trial is likely to take time, moreso, in view of the present

COVID-19 pandemic situation. It is also submitted that all the said 17

witnesses are official witnesses and thus, the question of influencing or

threatening them would not arise.

Learned State counsel has opposed the present application

for regular bail and has submitted that the present petitioner is involved in

four other cases.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted

that out of the said four cases, in three cases, the petitioner has been

acquitted and one case which is pending, is of the year 2016 which also

involved non commercial quantity of smack i.e. 2.07 gms. and in the said

case, the petitioner has already been granted the concession of regular

bail. He has further submitted that as per settled law, it is the facts of the

present case which are required to be considered for the purpose of

deciding the present bail application. For the said proposition, learned

counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment dated 16.01.2012

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.159 of 2012

titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and others

2012 (2) SCC 382 reference has been made to the relevant portion of

paragraph 6 which 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

2 of 3

which he has been charged and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances,

moreso, the fact that the recovery made from the petitioner is of non

commercial quantity and the petitioner has been in custody since

15.12.2021 and challan in the present case has already been presented and

there are 17 witnesses out of whom none have been examined and all the

said witnesses are official witnesses and thus, the question of the

petitioner threatening or influencing them does not arise and also in view

of the law laid down in Maulana's (supra) case, the present petition for

regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail

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

concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate and subject to him not being

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 Court 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
February 28th, 2022
Mehak


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




                                            3 of 3