Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonu @ Sonu Singh vs State Of Punjab on 2 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043755
213 2024:PHHC:043755
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12317-2024
DECIDED ON: 02.04.2024
SONU @ SONU SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, 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.120, dated 22.09.2022,
under Sections 21, 25, 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station
Bhindi Saidan, District Amritsar (Annexure P-1).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case and nominated on the basis of disclosure
statement of co-accused persons namely Inderjit Singh @ Nikka and Sandeep Singh
from whom the alleged recovery of 6 grams heroin was recovered. He has drawn
attention of this Court to the orders dated 23.12.2022 & 16.02.2023 passed in CRM-
M-59563-2022 & CRM-M-7523-2023 respectively by this Court, whereby co-
accused persons have already been granted the concession of bail.
3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,
which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition stating that
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043755
the petitioner is a habitual offender, who is involved in other cases, therefore, does
not deserve the concession of bail. Though, he does not controvert the fact that the
recovery of contraband was effected from the possession of other co-accused
persons.
4. Be that as it may, considering the fact that admittedly the contraband
was not recovered from the possession of the petitioner, who has suffered
incarceration of 4 months and 28 days, wherein charges are yet to be framed,
meaning thereby conclusion of trial shall take sufficient time, no useful purpose
would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for uncertain period, which
would amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined 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. As far as the contention of learned State counsel with regard to
pendency of other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this
Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs.
State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, this Court observed that
pendency of other FIRs involving the accused-petitioner cannot be a predicament to
consider the case for anticipatory bail or regular bail, as the evidence of the material
involved in those FIRs can be treated in those cases alone and not material in
instant FIR against the accused-petitioner to hold him guilty.
6. In the light of the above 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:043755
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)
02.04.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
