Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaipal Singh vs State Of Haryana on 3 July, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082913
CRM-M Nos.36989 and 39759 of 2022 -1- 2023:PHHC:082913
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
207/2 CRM-M-36989 of 2022
Date of Decision:03.07.2023
Jaipal Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
2) CRM-M-39759 of 2022
Vikram Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
****
Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-36989 of 2022.
Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate,
for the petitioner in CRM-M-39759 of 2022.
Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG, Haryana
****
JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)
1. Both the cases are taken up together for final disposal with the consent
of learned counsel for the parties since both the petitions arise out from the same
FIR and the prayer made in both of these cases is for the grant of regular bail.
2. Both these petitions have been filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail to the petitioners in FIR No.4
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082913
CRM-M Nos.36989 and 39759 of 2022 -2- 2023:PHHC:082913
dated 03.01.2021, under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act, registered at Police
Station Sadar Dabwali, District Sirsa.
3. As per the allegations, the police party had apprehended one co-
accused namely Neeraj @ Neeru from whom there was an alleged recovery of
30000 tablets of Tramadol.
4. On the basis of the disclosure statement of the aforesaid co-accused,
name of one of the present petitioner, namely, Jaipal Singh was nominated.
Thereafter, on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement of the aforesaid Jaipal
Singh, the name of the second petitioner, namely, Vikram Singh was nominated.
5. The afroesaid co-accused Neeraj @ Neeru has already been admitted
on default bail by this Court in CRR-1106 of 2021.
6. Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner (in CRM-M-36989 of 2022) and Mr. Aditya Sanghi, Advocate appearing
on behalf of the petitioner (in CRM-M-39759 of 2022) have submitted that it is a
case where both the petitioners have been falsely implicated and the main accused
from whom the recovery was effected has already been granted bail in the nature
of default bail. They submitted that no recovery has been effected from both the
petitioners even during the course of investigation. The reason for naming the
petitioner Jaipal Singh in the present case was because of the personal rivalry with
the co-accused namely Neeraj @ Neeru and due to which both the petitioners have
now faced incarceration for about two years since the petitioner Jaipal Singh is in
custody from 09.01.2021 and the petitioner Vikram Singh is in custody from
13.04.2021. They submitted that out of total 21 cited prosecution witnesses 5
witnesses have been examined as per the affidavit filed by the State. They also
submitted that even as per the affidavits/status report which have been filed in the
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082913
CRM-M Nos.36989 and 39759 of 2022 -3- 2023:PHHC:082913
present case by the State, no connection can be established with regard to the
present offence qua both the petitioners. The only reliance which has been made
by the State is on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused namely
Neeraj @ Neeru who is already on default bail. They also referred to a judgment of
the Supreme Court in Tofan Singh versus State of Tamil Nadu 2021 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 1 to contend that in the absence of any other cogent and sufficient
material to connect the petitioners with the offence, both the petitioners are entitled
for the grant of regular bail since the only material available with the State is
disclosure statement of a co-accused which is not admissible in evidence. They
also submitted that considering the long custody of the petitioner and the fact that
five prosecution witnesses have already been examined, they may be considered
for the grant of regular bail.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Harpreet Kaur, learned AAG, Haryana has
submitted that it is correct that both the petitioners have faced incarceration for
more than two years but has opposed the grant of regular bail to the petitioners on
the ground that the quantity involved in the present case is a huge quantity and
falls in the commercial quantity and therefore hit by the bar contained under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act. She also submitted on instructions that it is correct
that the petitioner Vikram Singh is not involved in any other case whereas the
petitioner Jaipal Singh is involved in three other cases out of which two cases
pertain to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and one is under
Sections 307, 452, 323, 147, 148 of the IPC and 3/25 of the Arms Act but none of
the petitioners are involved in any other case pertaining to NDPS Act.
8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is a case where both the petitioners have faced incarceration for
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082913
CRM-M Nos.36989 and 39759 of 2022 -4- 2023:PHHC:082913
more than 2 years. As per learned counsel for the petitioners, five prosecution
witnesses have already been examined and no recovery was effected from the
petitioners and the main accused in the present case from whom the alleged
recovery was effected is Neeraj @ Neeru who has already been admitted to bail
although on default bail by this Court. Since the quantity which is involved in the
present case falls in the category of commercial quantity, the rigor of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act has to be considered. In the present case, recovery was effected
from the co-accused namely Neeraj @ Neeru even as per the prosecution. The
aforesaid Neeraj @ Neeru has already been granted bail. It is not the case of the
prosecution that any recovery was effected from the petitioners. Therefore,
considering the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd Muslim @
Hussain versus State (NCT of Delhi) 2023 AIR (SCC) 1648 and the custody of
both the petitioners which is more than 2 years as per learned counsel for the
petitioners, the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not apply in
the present case. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State that in case the
petitioners are released on bail, then they may abscond from justice or influence
any witness or tamper with any evidence.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of both the cases, this
Court is of the considered view that both the petitioners are entitled for the grant of
regular bail in the light of Article 21 of the Constituion of India. Consequently,
both the petitions are allowed. The petitioners shall be released on regular bail
subject to furnishing bail bonds/surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial
Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
11. However, anything observed hereinabove shall not be treated as an
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082913
CRM-M Nos.36989 and 39759 of 2022 -5- 2023:PHHC:082913
expresion of opinion on merits of the cases and is only meant for the purpose of
decision of both the petitions.
(JASGURPREET SINGH PURI)
JUDGE
July 03, 2023
dinesh
Whether speaking : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:082913
5 of 5
