Punjab-Haryana High Court
Satish @ Ganja vs State Of Haryana on 16 October, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:134682
2023:PHHC:134682
CRM-M-16006-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
231 CRM-M-16006-2023
Date of decision: October 16, 2023
Satish @ Ganja
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Haryana
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Present: Ms. Sunita Devi, Advocate for
Ms. Manpreet Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Garg, AAG Haryana.
*****
ARUN MONGA, J. (Oral)
Following the denial of bail by the learned trial court, the petitioner
is now before this Court seeking his release as an undertrial in a case with FIR
No.486 dated December 31, 2020, registered under Section 21 of the Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short 'NDPS Act') at the Sadar
Police Station in Jind.
2. According to the First Information Report (FIR), ASI Rajbir Singh,
along with other police officials, was on routine patrolling duty. They received
secret information that the petitioner was involved in the sale of contraband.
Consequently, on the day of the incident, i.e., December 31, 2020, a barricade was
set up at Siwaha T-Point Pillukhera village. After some time, the petitioner, along
with co-accused Pardeep, arrived on a motorcycle, with Pardeep driving and the
petitioner as the pillion rider. They were signaled to stop and were apprehended by
the police. Upon inspection, 202 grams of smack were found in a polythene bag
carried by the petitioner, and an additional 188 grams of smack were discovered in
the toolbox of the motorcycle. A total of 390 grams of smack was recovered from
the conscious possession of the petitioner and the co-accused. An FIR was
registered, and the petitioner was arrested on the spot.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:134682
2023:PHHC:134682
CRM-M-16006-2023
3. The learned counsel representing the petitioner argues that the
alleged recovery was not made from the petitioner's conscious possession but was
planted on them. Based on the allegations outlined in the FIR, it is contended that
no case is made against the petitioner, and the prosecution's narrative appears to be
an attempt to falsely implicate the petitioner and his co-accused. The learned
counsel further maintains that the entire prosecution case relies on the testimony of
official witnesses, raising doubts about the credibility of the prosecution's account.
3.1. Furthermore, the petitioner's counsel asserts that there is no
substantial evidence against the petitioner. The petitioner is not connected to the
alleged offense, and the reported recovery of contraband is questionable.
3.2. She further submits that the petitioner has been in custody since
December 31, 2020, and the charge sheet has already been presented. The
petitioner is not required for further custodial interrogation, and the trial is
expected to be a lengthy process. Therefore, keeping the petitioner behind bars
serves no useful purpose.
3.3 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relies on Apex Court's
judgment in case titled 'Hasanujjaman and others Vs. The State of West
Bengal'1 to contend that de hors the merit merely on the ground of duration of
custody, petitioner is entitled to bail. She further relies on Apex Court's judgment
in case titled Sanjay Chandra versus CBI2 to contend that imprisonment before
conviction has a substantial punitive content.
3.4. The petitioner's counsel further contends that the petitioner is not
required for additional custodial interrogation. There is no indication that the
petitioner would tamper with evidence or influence prosecution witnesses. The
petitioner maintains his innocence and claims to have been falsely implicated in
the case.
SLP (Crl.) No.3221-2023 decided on 04.05.2023
AIR 2012 SC 830
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:134682
2023:PHHC:134682
CRM-M-16006-2023
4. On the other hand, learned State counsel strenuously opposes the
petition, expressing concerns about the possibility of the petitioner fleeing from
trial proceedings if granted bail. He submits that according to the FSL Report, the
alleged recovered quantity would fall within the category of commercial quantity,
and the stringent provisions of Section 37 of the NDPS Act would be attracted in
this case. He further submits that petitioner is involved in three other cases,
though he is on bail in those cases.
5. I have heard the rival arguments and reviewed the case file.
6. In response to a query from the Court, on instructions from SI
Rajender Kumar, learned State counsel informs that the challan was filed on
October 28, 2022, but charges have not been framed yet. The investigation
regarding the petitioner is complete, and he is thus not required for custodial
interrogation. Of the twenty-one prosecution witnesses, none has been examined
so far. The trial is anticipated to take a considerable amount of time. Bail serves
the purpose of allowing an accused to remain free until their guilt or innocence is
determined. In contrast, the petitioner has been in detention since December 31,
2020, for more than two years and nine months.
7. The petitioner's continued preventive custody is based on an
unsubstantiated suspicion that he might tamper with evidence or influence
witnesses. The documentary evidence is more in the nature of an FSL report
regarding the contraband, has already been filed in the Court below and is not
accessible to the accused. There is no probability of tampering with evidence as it
has already been seized by the investigating agency. As for the witnesses, they are
all official, and therefore, they are unlikely to be influenced, even if there are any
such apprehensions by the prosecution.
8. The offence allegedly committed by the petitioner is non-violent in
nature, and in that sense, his release on bail does not pose a threat to society at
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:134682
2023:PHHC:134682
CRM-M-16006-2023
large in terms of committing any violent crime. At this stage, the allegations
against the petitioner are subject to trial. In any case, there appears to be a
reasonable ground to believe that the petitioner may not be guilty of the alleged
offense, and he is not likely to commit any offense while on bail.
9. The petitioner is stated to be the sole provider for his family. As a
responsiblefamily man with fixed abode, the petitioner is unlikely to pose a flight
risk or evade trial proceedings.
10. 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 by keeping the petitioner in further preventive custody.
11. Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail, in case
not required in any other case, on his furnishing bail bonds and surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court where his case is being tried, and in case
he/she is not available, before the learned Duty Judge, as the case may be.
12. In case the petitioner is found involved or gets involved in any
offense while on bail, the prosecution shall be at liberty to seek the cancellation of
his bail in the instant case.
13. It is made clear that any observations and/or submissions noted
hereinabove shall not have any effect on the merits of the case, as they are for the
limited purpose of the bail hearing alone, and the learned trial Court shall proceed
without being influenced by this order.
14. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA)
JUDGE
October 16, 2023
Ajay
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:134682
4 of 4
