Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Singh @ Latu vs State Of Punjab on 14 November, 2022
CRM-M-46820-2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CRM-M-46820-2022
Date of decision : 14.11.2022
Harpreet Singh @ Latu
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Ajay Pal Singh Rehan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular
bail to the petitioner in FIR no.80 dated 14.06.2022 registered under
Sections 27 and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act
1985 (in short "NDPS Act") (Sections 308 and 34 IPC added later on) at
Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the FIR
was registered after a delay of 3 days inasmuch as it was on 11.06.2022,
when Manish @ Mani had left the house whereas the complaint had been
filed on 14.06.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner was granted
the concession of regular bail vide order dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure P-1)
by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur in the FIR which
was initially registered under Sections 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act, 1985. It
is contended that after a gap of three months i.e. on 05.09.2022, the
complainant got a supplementary statement recorded and alleged that the
1 of 4
petitioner and the co-accused Manpreet Singh @ Sunny had given beatings
to his brother Manish @ Mani on the date of the alleged incident. It is
contended that there is no credible evidence or medical evidence in support
of the alleged beatings. It is further contended that even as per the FIR, it
has been mentioned that Manish @ Mani was a drug addict. It is argued that
the police authorities cannot outrightly arrest the petitioner once the
petitioner had already been granted the concession of bail by the Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur, vide order dated 20.06.2022 in the
earlier of sections and it is necessary to obtain an order from the Court
either qua cancellation of bail or seeking permission to arrest the petitioner
on account of changed circumstances and has relied upon a judgment passed
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram Versus State of Jharkhand
and another reported as 2019(3) RCR (Criminal) 538 in support of the
same. It is stated that the petitioner has been in custody since 17.09.2022
and earlier also he was in custody from 15.06.2022 to 20.06.2022 and is not
involved in any other case. It is further stated that the petitioner in order to
show his bona fide, is ready to give an amount of Rs.20,000/- to the
complainant without admitting his liability, for the purpose of medical
expenses incurred by the injured within a period of two weeks from today.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present petition for regular bail and has submitted that the present petitioner
was specifically named in the supplementary statement dated 05.09.2022
and he had given beatings to Manish @ Mani, who is the brother of the
complainant. The other facts have, however, not been disputed.
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
2 of 4
The FIR has been recorded after a delay of 3 days inasmuch as
on 11.06.2022 said Manish @ Mani left the house whereas the complainant
was fled on 14.06.2022. The petitioner was granted the concession of
regular bail vide order dated 20.06.2022 (Annexure P-1) in the present FIR
as the FIR was registered under Sections 27 and 29 of the NDPS Act and it
was a gap of 3 month i.e., on 05.09.2022 on the basis of supplementary
statement of the complainant, the petitioner was again arrested on
17.09.2022 and since then he has been in custody. In the FIR itself, it has
been mentioned that Manish @ Mani was a drug addict. The petitioner is
stated to be not involved in any other case.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, 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 him not being required in any
other case and subject to preparing a demand draft for an amount of
Rs.20,000/- in the name of the complainant Honey and hand over the same
to the Investigating Officer within a period of two weeks from today and
the Investigating Officer is directed to hand over the same to the
complainant after taking receipt from the complainant.
It is made clear that in case the demand draft of the said amount
is not handed over to the Investigating Officer within a period two weeks
from today, then the present petition shall be deemed to have been
dismissed. The payment of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant would be not
construed as an admission of guilt by the petitioner.
However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioner to threaten or influence the complainant or any of the witnesses,
3 of 4
then it would be open to the State to move an application for cancellation of
bail granted to the petitioner.
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 petition.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 14, 2022
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
