Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vijay Alias Rakko vs State Of Haryana on 27 May, 2022
In The High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRM-M-15122-2022 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 27.5.2022
Vijay alias Rakko .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Krishan K. Chahal, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner assails order dated 9.3.2021 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar (Annexure P-13) cancelling his bail
as had been granted to him in a case arising out of FIR No.407, dated
28.10.2019, Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar, under Section 20
of NDPS Act.
2. A few facts necessary to notice for disposal of this petition are that
the petitioner initially came to be involved in FIR No. 192 dated
25.6.2018, Police Station Narnaund, District Hisar, under Section 20
of NDPS Act, wherein allegations were to the effect that he had been
found in possession of 19.6 Kgs of 'Ganja'. He was granted regular
1 of 4
-2- CRM-M-15122-2022 (O&M)
bail by the trial Court vide order dated 1.9.2018 (Annexure P-1) and
consequently was released on 3.9.2018.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner was involved in another case i.e. the present
case arising out of FIR No.407 dated 28.10.2019, Police Station
Narnaund, District Hisar, under Section 20 of NDPS Act, wherein the
allegations pertain to recovery of 4.6 KG of 'Ganja'. In the said
case, the petitioner had not been arrested at the spot, but was later on
arrested on the basis of his confessional statement.
4. In this case also, the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail by
the trial Court vide order dated 23.4.2020 (Annexure P-3). Thus, the
petitioner was on bail in both the cases and the trials were proceeding
in respect of both the cases.
5. Subsequently, the petitioner was convicted in respect of the trial
arising out of FIR No. 192 dated 25.6.2018, Police Station Narnaund,
District Hisar, under Section 20 of NDPS Act, vide judgment dated
26.2.2021 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar and
wherein order of sentence was passed on 2.3.2021 and the petitioner
was taken into custody on 26.2.2021 itself. The petitioner having
been taken in custody on account of his conviction on 26.2.2021 in
trial arising out of FIR No.192 dated 25.6.2018, could not appear in
the other trial, which was pending against him, which had arisen out
of present FIR i.e. FIR No.407, dated 28.10.2019, Police Station
Narnaund, District Hisar, under Section 20 of NDPS Act, on the date
fixed before the trial Court i.e. 9.3.2021 and consequently his bail
was canceled.
2 of 4
-3- CRM-M-15122-2022 (O&M)
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his absence as
on 9.3.2021 was on account of reason beyond his control and that it
was for the authorities concerned to have produced him before the
trial Court in the proceedings arising out of the other FIR.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that subsequently
his sentence, as awarded in FIR No. 192 dated 25.6.2018, was
ordered to remain suspended vide order dated 15.2.2022 (Annexure
P-6) passed by this Court, but despite the said suspension he has not
been released since his bail as granted in the other case stands
canceled vide order dated 9.3.2021.
8. Learned counsel has submitted that he has regularly been appearing
in both the trials and never intended to flee from justice and that his
absence as on 9.3.2021 was unintentional and infact was beyond his
control having been taken into custody pursuant to conviction in the
other case.
9. Notice of motion had been issued in this case.
10. Learned State counsel has today file reply by way of affidavit of Sh.
Safiuddin, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sadar, Hansi, District
Hisar, has been filed. The same is taken on record.
11. The aforesaid position regarding conviction of the petitioner vide
judgment dated 26.2.2021 in trial arising out of FIR No.192 dated
25.6.2018 is not disputed in the reply filed by State. However, a
stand has been taken in the reply that the petitioner himself was
supposed to apprise the Court concerned about the correct factual
3 of 4
-4- CRM-M-15122-2022 (O&M)
position and that in these circumstances the order in question cannot
be said to be suffering from any infirmity.
12. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.
13. The impugned order as passed by the trial Court had been passed on
the basis of the circumstances and facts as available before the trial
Court i.e. the absence of the petitioner. The trial Court had not been
apprised about the fact that the petitioner stands convicted in another
case and had been taken into custody in the other case. In these
circumstances impugned order dated 9.3.2021, having been passed
without all the relevant facts having been placed before it, is hereby
set aside.
14. The petitioner is directed to be produced before the trial Court by the
jail authorities on 30.5.2022 and the trial Court shall release the
petitioner on bail. Since the bail bonds and surety bonds have
already been furnished earlier, the same may be restored unless the
trial Court feels necessity of seeking any fresh bail bonds and surety
bonds. In case, the The trial Court feels necessity, it can impose any
other condition so as to ensure the regular appearance of the
petitioner.
27.5.2022 (GURVINDER SINGH GILL)
Mohan JUDGE
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
4 of 4
