Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kallu Ram Alias Kala vs State Of Punjab on 26 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059468
CRM-M-5674-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:059468
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
218
CRM-M-5674-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 26.04.2023
KALLU RAM ALIAS KALA
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. J.S. Moudgill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG Punjab.
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J.
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in respect of FIR No.268 dated 07.10.2022,
under Section 22 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station Patran, District
Patiala.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been in custody for
the last about 7 months. The non-commercial quantity of contraband has been
recovered from him. There is another case registered against him under the NDPS
Act, involving a recovery of non-commercial quantity of contraband, wherein he
is on bail vide order dated 28.09.2018. In this regard he relies on the judgment
dated 16.01.2012 passed by Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in Criminal
Appeal No.159 of 2012 titled as Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. Charges have been framed on 20.04.2023,
however, the prosecution evidence is yet to commence. In all, there are 12
prosecution witnesses.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059468
CRM-M-5674-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:059468
petitioner was apprehended at the spot and non-commercial quantity of
contraband has been recovered from him. There is one more case against the
petitioner, which involves recovery of non-commercial quantity of contraband.
He is however unable to controvert the submissions with regard to custody, stage
of trial and that he is on bail in the other case.
4. Heard.
5. Hon'ble The Supreme Court of India in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (Supra) had observed as under:-
"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."
6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, observations made
in the aforesaid judgment and in particular that the petitioner is in custody for the
last 6 months and 18 days; non-commercial quantity of contraband has been
recovered from him, therefore, rigors of Section 37 of NDPS Act are not attracted
in the present case; though the charges were framed on 20.04.2023, however, the
prosecution evidence is yet to commence; in all, there are 12 prosecution
witnesses; the trial is likely to take a considerable time, his further detention
behind bars would not serve any useful purpose, thus the present petition for grant
of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
7. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered
to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned and subject to him not being
required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059468
CRM-M-5674-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:059468
1. The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
2. The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution
witnesses.
3. The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every
date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.
4. The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of
which, he is an accused, or for commission of which he is suspected
of.
5. The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce,
threaten or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the
case so as to dissuade him/ her from disclosing such facts to the
Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence in any
manner.
6. The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.
7. The petitioner shall furnish his address and mobile number to the
Trial Court forthwith and shall not change the same till the
conclusion of the trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner seeks
to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done only with prior
intimation to the learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the same.
8. The petitioner shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Trial
Court forthwith and in case, he does not have the passport, he shall
furnish a specific affidavit in this regard.
8. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
9. In view of the above, this Court makes it clarified that the
observations made herein above are limited for the purpose of present
proceedings and would not be construed as any opinion on the merits of the case
and the trial would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
April 26, 2023
M.Kamra
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:059468
3 of 3
