Shubham vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 5849 P&H

                            207

                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                                                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                                         CRM-M-5017-2022 (O&M)
                                                                         Date of decision : 01.06.2022


                            Shubham                                                           ... Petitioner(s)

                                                                Versus

                            State of Haryana                                                ... Respondent(s)



                            CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN

                            Present :     Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                          Ms. Ambika Luthra, Addl. AG Haryana.



                            ALKA SARIN, J. (ORAL)

This is the third petition under Section 439 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR

No.254 dated 21.07.2020 under Sections 22 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar

Yamuna Nagar, District Yamuna Nagar. The earlier petitions filed by the

petitioner being CRM-M-24134-2020 and CRM-M-15436-2021 were

dismissed as withdrawn on 28.08.2020 and 08.10.2021, respectively.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the

petitioner is a young boy of 23 years and has been in custody since

21.07.2020 and there is no other case pending against the petitioner. It is

further the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the official

witnesses in the present case have not been appearing before the Trial Court

and despite the challan having been presented on 16.09.2020, out of 17 YOGESH SHARMA 2022.06.02 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CRM-M-5017-2022 (O&M)                                                   -2-

prosecution witnesses, only 1 witness has been examined. Learned counsel

for the petitioner would further contend that a perusal of the zimni orders,

which have been annexed with the status report, clearly reveal that the Trial

Court had issued bailable warrants against the official witnesses since they

are not turning up for getting their statements recorded.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has stated that two

earlier petitions filed by the petitioner being CRM-M-24134-2020 and

CRM-M-15436-2021 were dismissed as withdrawn on 28.08.2020 and

08.10.2021, respectively. There is no ground for grant of regular bail to the

petitioner keeping in view the quantity recovered from the petitioner.

However, learned counsel for the State is not in a position to deny the fact

that despite the challan having been presented on 16.09.2020, out of 17

prosecution witnesses, only 1 witness has been examined and that the

petitioner has been in custody since 21.07.2020 and that there is no other

case pending against the petitioner.

Heard.

In the present case, despite the challan having been presented

on 16.09.2020, out of 17 prosecution witnesses, only 1 witness has been

examined. Zimni orders placed on record today along with the status report

by way of an affidavit of Subhash Chand, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of

Police, Yamuna Nagar reveal that since none of the official witnesses were

coming forward to get their statements recorded, bailable warrants had to be

issued and despite that no official witness has been examined till date.

Rather, order dated 27.04.2022 reveals a pitiable state of affairs that despite YOGESH SHARMA 2022.06.02 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh
                             CRM-M-5017-2022 (O&M)                                                     -3-

bailable warrants having been received back duly executed, none of the

witnesses appeared and an adjournment was sought. The petitioner is a

young boy of 23 years and has been in custody since 21.07.2020. There is

no other case pending against the petitioner. The conclusion of the trial is

likely to take some time.

In view of the above-mentioned circumstances, detention of the

petitioner would not serve any useful purpose. Without commenting upon

the merits of the case, I deem this to be a fit case to grant the concession of

regular bail to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail

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

Illaqa Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.

However, the Prosecution will always be at liberty to apply for

cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found to be misusing the

concession of bail in any manner.

It is also made clear that any observation made herein shall not

be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

Disposed off. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed

off.

A copy of this order be sent to the Inspector General of Police,

Haryana to take appropriate action against the erring officials who have not

been appearing before the Court below for getting their statements recorded.

                                                                                     ( ALKA SARIN )
                            01.06.2022                                                    JUDGE
                            Yogesh Sharma

NOTE : Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking YOGESH SHARMA Whether reportable : YES/NO 2022.06.02 10:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Chandigarh