Rajinder Kumar Alias Raju vs State Of Punjab
2023 Latest Caselaw 14429 P&H

                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113035



CRM-M-9552-2023                  2023:PHHC:113035                     1



      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                     CHANDIGARH

223
                                                 CRM-M-9552-2023 (O&M)
                                                 Date of decision: 29.08.2023

Rajinder Kumar @ Raju
                                                                    ...Petitioner

                                   Versus

State of Punjab
                                                                 ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
                     ****
Present: Mr. Gurpal S. Sandhu, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Ms. Himani Arora, AAG, Punjab.

               ****
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J.

1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.176 dated

30.12.2022, registered under Sections 21 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985 at

Police Station City Fazilka, District Fazilka.

2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner is in custody for

almost 8 months, having been arrested on 30.12.2022. The alleged

recovery that was effected from him, is of 25g of heroin, from a polythene

bag, which was stated to have been thrown by him on the ground. The

mandatory provisions of Sections 42 and 50 of the NDPS Act were not

complied with. No independent witness was joined at the time of alleged

recovery, despite the fact that recovery is stated to be effected from a

thoroughfare. Challan stands presented on 24.02.2023, however, charges

have not been framed and in all there are 8 prosecution witnesses. He is

involved in one more case under the NDPS Act, wherein his sentence has

1 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113035

been suspended. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Hon'ble The

Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and

others, 2012(2) SCC 382.

3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground the

intermediate quantity of contraband was recovered from the petitioner.

She is however unable to controvert the submissions made regarding

custody, stage of the case and sentence of the petitioner being suspended

in the other case.

4. Heard.

5. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.

Amir Rashadi (Supra) had held that, "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 the possibility of fleeing away from the

jurisdiction of the Court etc."

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in

particular that the petitioner is in custody for the last 8 months; on bail in

other case; 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; challan was presented on 24.02.2023, however, charges

are yet to be framed and in total there are 8 PWs; the trial is likely to take

a considerable time, thus his further incarceration would not serve any

useful purpose, the present petition for grant of regular bail deserves to be

allowed.

7. As a result, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is

2 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113035

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 his not being required in any other case. The petitioner shall

abide by the following conditions:-

(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses.

(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of Court.

(iv) 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.

(v) 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.

(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse his liberty.

(vii) 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.

(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior permission of the trial Court.

(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.

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, it is clarified that the observations

3 of 4

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113035

made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would

not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial

would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.

                                              ( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
29.08.2023                                          JUDGE
ashok

                Whether speaking/reasoned :        Yes/No

                Whether reportable :               Yes/No

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:113035

4 of 4