Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem vs State Of Haryana on 2 December, 2023
Author: Vikas Suri
Bench: Vikas Suri
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154442
2023:PHHC:154442
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
214
CRM-M-43165-2023
Date of Decision: 02.12.2023
Prem
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI
Present:- Mr. Raman Chawla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurbir S. Dhillon, A.A.G., Haryana.
FIR Dated Section/s Police Station
No.
352 18.05.2023 21(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act City Hansi, Police
(Section 27A of NDPS Act District Hansi,
added later on District Hisar.
*****
VIKAS SURI, J.
1. Through the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,
petitioner is seeking regular bail in the above captioned FIR.
2. Custody certificate of the petitioner dated 28.11.2023 has been
filed by learned State counsel in Court today, which his taken on record. A
copy thereof furnished to learned counsel for the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is submitted
that the petitioner has been nominated as accused on the basis of disclosure
statement of co-accused Vishwas, who along with Chattar Pal was
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154442
CRM-M-43165-2023 -2- 2023:PHHC:154442
apprehended at the spot having possession of contraband (ganja) weighing
20.800 kg. It is further submitted that the petitioner has no connection with
the commission of alleged offence and false recovery of Rs.20,000/-
alongwith vehicle bearing registration No.HR-63C-3140 is shown to have
been effected from the house of the petitioner. No recovery of contraband as
alleged has been effected from the petitioner and therefore, he is not required
for custodial interrogation. It is further submitted that the petitioner has
clean antecedents as per the custody certificate placed on record today; final
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has been filed on 10.11.2023 and case is
now pending consideration for framing of charges; there are total 25
prosecution witnesses cited and therefore, conclusion of the trial will take
considerable time. It is, thus, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars
for an indefinite period. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied
upon the judgment of Apex Court in Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu,
(2021) 4 SCC 1.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has opposed the petition by
submitting that the petitioner is not entitled for grant of benefit of regular
bail keeping in view the gravity of offence as the petitioner can misuse the
said benefit, if granted, by absconding from trial and influence the witnesses.
Learned State counsel, however, could not dispute the other factual aspects
as narrated by leaned counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the
rival contentions.
6. Keeping in view all aspects and the law laid down by the Apex
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154442
CRM-M-43165-2023 -3- 2023:PHHC:154442
Court in Tofan Singh's case (supra); the fact that the no contraband has
been recovered from the petitioner and he has been nominated on the basis
of disclosure statement of co-accused; there is no other criminal case against
the petitioner; he is in custody since the date of his arrest i.e. 21.05.2023;
trial is not likely to conclude in near future as charges have not been framed
so far and there are 25 witnesses cited, which are yet to be examined by the
prosecution; and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind
bars for an indefinite period, the present petition deserves to be accepted.
7. Accordingly, without commenting upon the merits of the case,
the instant bail petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on
regular bail, in case not required in any other case, subject to his furnishing
bail-bond and surety/sureties to the satisfaction of concerned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate.
8. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not influence the trial or
any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.
9. It is made clear that any observations or submissions noted
above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of material
available on record.
( VIKAS SURI )
December 02, 2023 JUDGE
harish
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154442
3 of 3
