Punjab-Haryana High Court
Angrej Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2023
CRM-M-264-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:097562
213+106
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-264-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 31.07.2023
Angrej Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present:- Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate,
For the petitioner.
Ms. Guramrit Kaur, DAG, Punjab.
****
ARUN MONGA, J. (ORAL)
CRM-30628-2023
Application is allowed, as prayed for.
Testimony of PW-3 ASI, Charanjit Singh dated 05.05.2022 (Annexure P-5)
is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
Main case
Petitioner seeks bail in case bearing FIR No.168 dated 17.09.2021,
registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
(for short 'NDPS Act') at Police Station, City Moga, District Moga.
2. Per FIR, on 17.09.2021, petitioner along with co-accused Hoshiar Singh
were apprehended on a suspicion by SI Gurtej Singh. On search, white colored polythene
envelope containing 280 grams Heroin, was recovered from petitioner's possession,
without having any permit or license. Whereas, co-accused Hoshiar Singh was found in
possession of 30 grams Heroin. Both were arrested immediately from the spot.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner has been falsely
implicated in the present case. He submits that the alleged recovery effected from the
plastic bag has been planted on the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner is in
custody since 17.09.2021. Challan has already been presented before the competent
Court. Charges have been framed. There are 16 prosecution witnesses only four of the
witnesses have been examined. Petitioner is not required for custodial interrogation. He
VANDANA
2023.07.31 18:36
I attest to the accuracy and
CRM-M-264-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:097562
submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely Manjeet Kaur and Hoshiar Singh have
already been accorded concession of anticipatory bail and regular bail by learned trial
Court vide order dated 28.10.2021 and 02.11.2021 respectively. Though allegations
against petitioner are same as those against his co-accused on bail, and yet he continues
to be in jail, he contends. He argues that on the ground of parity alone, petitioner is
entitled to be released on bail during pendency of trial.
3.1 He further submits that head constable rank official in police is not
competent to either register the FIR as complainant or the Investigating Officer. He
points out even in the statement as PW-3 before the learned trial Court, he himself
conceded that he is having local rank of ASI otherwise he is a Head Constable and as per
him he was under the impression that he is competent to carry out the search and
investigate the matter. He refers to the testimony of said ASI/Head constable, which is on
record as Annexure P/5. He submits that there has been a clear cut violation of the
provisions of NDPS Act and such non-compliance in all likelihood will result in acquittal
of the petitioner on conclusion of the trial.
3.2 He further submits that petitioner has a fixed abode and as such there is no
chance of his either absconding or fleeing or tampering with the prosecution evidence, in
any manner, in case he is allowed bail at this stage.
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the bail petition. She
submits that petitioner has committed a serious offence and is a habitual offender. She
further submits that quantity of contraband recovered falls under the commercial
quantity, so provisions of Section 37 of NDPS Act would be attracted. She further points
out that petitioner is involved in another case registered under Section 42/52-A of Jail
Act, Police Station City Faridkot and is not on bail in the said case. Apart from this, one
FIR under Section 21 of NDPS Act has also been registered against the petitioner in
which his production warrant has been issued. In case petitioner is granted concession of
bail, there are chances of his absconding.
5. I have heard rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and have
gone through the case file.
VANDANA
2023.07.31 18:36
I attest to the accuracy and
CRM-M-264-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:097562
6. Challan is stated to have been presented, charges have been framed.
Investigation is complete, petitioner is thus not required for custodial interrogation. Trial
has commenced and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence only four prosecution
witnesses out of 16 witnesses have been examined so far. Commencement/conclusion of
the trial is likely to take quite sometime. Allegations against petitioner are a matter of
trial at this stage.
7. Bail allows an accused to maintain his freedom until his guilt or innocence
is determined. Whereas petitioner has already been languishing in jail for more than 01
year and 10 months in preventive custody, he being behind bars since 17.09.2021. He is
being kept in preventive custody merely on an unfounded suspicion that if he is let out,
he may either tamper with evidence and/ or influence witnesses. There is no documentary
evidence and it is more in the nature of FSL report qua contraband, already filed in the
Court below to which accused has no access. There is no probability of tampering with
evidence as the same has already been seized by the investigating agency. As regards
witnesses, they are all official and therefore, they are unlikely to be influenced, even if
there is any such apprehension by the prosecution.
8. At this stage, there appears to be a reasonable ground that petitioner may
not be guilty of the alleged offence and he is unlikely to commit any offence while on
bail.
9. Petitioner is stated to be 28-year old family man, who has added
responsibility of her three minor children and wife, who are living in penury in his
absence. Being a family man, it is unlikely that he is flight risk or will flee from the trial
proceedings. Offence allegedly committed by petitioner is of non-violent nature and in
that sense his release on bail is not a threat to the society at large by committing any
violent crime.
10. Co-accused-Hoshiar Singh has been granted concession of bail by learned
trial court vide order dated 02.11.2021. Alleged role attributed to the petitioner appears to
be at par with that of his co-accused. In the premise, I see no ground as to why petitioner
should not be meted out with similar treatment.
VANDANA
2023.07.31 18:36
I attest to the accuracy and
CRM-M-264-2023 (O&M) 2023:PHHC:097562
11. Considering the overall scenario and without commenting on the merits of
the case, the instant petition is allowed. I am of the view that no useful purpose would be
served to keep the petitioner in further preventive custody.
12. Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing
bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court, where his case is
being tried and in case he/she is not available, before learned Duty Judge, as the case may
be.
13. In case, petitioner is found to be involved or gets involved in any offence
while on bail, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of his bail in the
instant case.
14. It is made clear that any observations and/or submissions noted hereinabove
shall not have any effect on merits of the case as the same are for the limited purpose of
hearing the instant bail petition alone and learned Trial Court shall proceed without being
influenced with this order.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
( ARUN MONGA )
JUDGE
31.07.2023
vandana
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
VANDANA
2023.07.31 18:36
I attest to the accuracy and
