Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh @ Sony vs State Of Punjab on 21 December, 2023
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164615
203/2 2023:PHHC:164615
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-11762-2023
DECIDED ON: 21.12.2023
KULDEEP SINGH @ SONI
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Sunil Sihag, Advocate for
Mr. Karandeep S. Sidhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 439
Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.32, dated 27.04.2022, under
Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Ghall Khurad, District
Ferozepur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery has been effected from his
conscious possession. He submits that the recovery of 860 tablets of Etizolam was
effected from the shop of co-accused namely Nagender. The case set up by the
counsel for the petitioner for the grant of regular bail is that the petitioner has
already suffered a reasonable period of custody i.e., 1 year and 3 months, wherein
only two prosecution witnesses have been examined out of total 12. He further
submits that the petitioner is having clean antecedents as he is not involved in any
other case whatsoever.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164615
3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. Accordingly to the custody certificate, the petitioner is
behind the bars for the last 1 year and 2 months and 28 days and he is not involved
in any other case of any nature.
4. Be that as it may, custody suffered by the petitioner is 1 year and 3
months, wherein out of total 12 prosecution witnesses only 2 have been examined
after framing of charges on 10.03.2023 and the petitioner is a person of clean
antecedents, as he is not involved in any other case, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping him behind bars for an indefinite period, which would also
violate the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under Article
21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again discussed by this Court,
while relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131.
5. In light of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is directed
to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
6. The present petition is hereby allowed.
7. However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall not be
construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
21.12.2023 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:164615
2 of 2
