Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pushpender vs State Of Haryana on 21 September, 2022
CRM-M-42781-2022 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(235)
CRM-M-42781-2022
Date of decision: - 21.09.2022
Pushpender
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present:- Ms. Alisha Soni, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Praveen Bhadu, AAG, Haryana.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
This is a first petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.117 dated 23.03.2022, registered
under Section 17 of the Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act,
1985, at Police Station City Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been in custody since 23.03.2022 and the investigation is
complete and the challan has been presented and there are 20 witnesses,
none of them have been examined and thus, the trial is likely to take time.
It is stated that the alleged recovery from the petitioner is of 500 grams of
opium, which is of non-commercial quantity as the commercial quantity
stipulated for the same starts from 2.50 Kgs.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
present petition and has submitted that the petitioner is involved in one
1 of 3
more case, thus, he does not deserve the concession of regular bail.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rebuttal, has submitted
that the petitioner is on bail in the said case and has relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi
Vs. State of U.P. and another", reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382 to
contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen
while deciding a bail application and the bail application of the petitioner
cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the petitioner is involved in
other cases. The relevant portion of the said judgment 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 which he has been charged
and other circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from
the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
perused the paper book.
The petitioner has been in custody since 23.03.2022 and the
investigation is complete and the challan has been presented and there are
20 witnesses, none of them have been examined and thus, the trial is
likely to take time. The alleged recovery from the petitioner in the present
case is of 500 grams of opium, which is a non-commercial quantity and
thus, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act would not apply to the
facts of the present case.
2 of 3
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances as
well as the law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case
(supra), 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.
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,
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 )
September 21, 2022 JUDGE
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
3 of 3
