Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bijender vs State Of Haryana on 27 April, 2023
2023:PHHC:060146
CRM-M-19645-2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
205 CRM-M-19645-2023
Date of decision:27.04.2023
Bijender ... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present: Ms. Pooja Jaglan, Advocate and
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
3K 2k 3k
SUVIR SEHGAL J. (ORAL)
1.
This is the 4 petition filed by the petitioner under Section 439
of Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in:-
SHEETAL
2023.04.27 16:53
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
11.02.2020 City Safidon, District 20, 25, 27-A and 29 of
Jind the NDPS Act, 1985
Case of the prosecution is that on the basis of a secret information,
a car was intercepted and recovery of 9.20 kg. of charas was
effected from three polythene bags, which were lying in its boot.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was engaged
to drive the car from which recovery was effected and the vehicle
belongs to Pala Ram, who has been released on bail. Counsel
submits that the petitioner is in custody since the registration of
the FIR and charges have not been framed. By placing reliance
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP
2023:PHHC:060146
(Criminal)-6690-2022 titled as Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh decided on 25.01.2023, she contends
that as the petitioner has a clean past, he deserves to be released on
bail.
4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel, upon instructions,
submits that the recovery effected falls within the ambit of
commercial quantity and the bar as contained under Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, is attracted. On the basis of the interim orders of
the Trial Court, Annexure P-5, State counsel could not dispute that
proceedings are fixed for consideration on charge. As per his
instructions, 19 witnesses have been mentioned in the challan
filed by the prosecution.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties.
6. | Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (supra)
has held as under:-
"3..... It is true that the quantity recovered from the
petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of
Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted. However, in
the absence of criminal antecedents and the fact that the
petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years, we
are satisfied that the conditions of Section 37 of the Act can be
dispensed with at this stage, more so when the trial is yet to
commence though the charges have been framed."
6. Noticing that the petitioner has an unblemished past, is in
confinement for the last more than 38 months and the trial is yet to
start, this Court is inclined to accept the prayer made in the
petition.
SHEETAL
2023.04.27 16:53
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
2023:PHHC:060146
7. Without adverting to the merits or de-merits of the arguments
addressed, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released
on bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the
Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
8. It is clarified that any observation made hereinabove shall not be
construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
27.04.2023 (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
SHEETAL
2023.04.27 16:53
| attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh
