Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rakesh vs State Of Haryana on 16 October, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:134121
201
2023:PHHC:134121
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-28358-2023
DECIDED ON: 16.10.2023
RAKESH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Lathwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Gaurav Jindal, Addl. AG. Haryana.
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.131, dated 10.03.2022, under Section
20 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak (Haryana).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery has been effected from him. He
further contends that the alleged car bearing No.BR-31AF-2584 from which the
recovery has been effected also does not belong to the petitioner. It is further contended
on behalf of the petitioner that he was arrested on 10.03.2022 and out of total 24
prosecution witnesses only 3 have been examined after framing of charges on
23.08.2022.
3. Learned State counsel submits that petitioner is involved in two other
cases meaning thereby he is a habitual offender, thus, does not deserve the concession
of regular bail at this stage. Though, he does not controvert the fact that after framing
of charges on 23.08.2022 out of total 24 prosecution witnesses only 3 have been
examined till date.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:134121
4. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the petitioner has suffered
incarceration of 1 year, 7 months, from which no contraband whatsoever admittedly
has been recovered and trial is moving at the snail's pace as out of total 24 prosecution
witnesses only 3 have been examined after framing of charges on 23.08.2022 so far,
which curtails the right of the petitioner for speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as
enshrined under Article 21 of the 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. As far as the pendency of other cases is concerned as has been stated by
learned State counsel, no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the criminal antecedents of
the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same time it is equally true that the
appreciation of evidence during the course of trial has to be looked into with reference
to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other
pending cases. In such eventuality strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on
account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would lend the
petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
6. In view of the aforesaid 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.
7. The present petition is hereby allowed.
8. 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)
16.10.2023 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:134121
2 of 2
