Sanjay vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 7019 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sanjay vs State Of Haryana on 3 April, 2024

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044470


218
                                                          2024:PHHC:044470

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                                       CRM-M-14852-2024
                                       DECIDED ON: 03.04.2024

SANJAY
                                                          .....PETITIONER

                                     VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA
                                                          .....RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:    Ms. Deipa Singh, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Baljinder Singh Virk, Sr. DAG Haryana.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the 2nd time under

Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.682, dated

23.09.2021, under Sections 20 and 27-A of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police

Station City Hansi, District Hisar (Annexure P-1).

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been

falsely implicated in the present case and no recovery whatsoever has been effected

from the possession of the petitioner, as is evident from the final report under

Section 173 Cr.P.C. He has drawn attention of this Court to an order dated

08.02.2024 (Annexure P-6) passed by this Court in CRM-M-37345-2023, vide

which Jasmer @ Kuku has been granted the concession of regular bail from whom

recovery of 5 Kg 100 grams of Sulpha was effected.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044470

3. Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner,

which is taken on record. He does not controvert the fact that recovery was not

effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner.

4. Be that as it may, considering the fact that admittedly the recovery was

not effected from the possession of the petitioner, who has suffered incarceration of

2 years, 6 months and 8 days as is evident from the custody certificate and co-

accused namely Jasmer @ Kuku has already been granted the concession of regular

bail added with the fact that conclusion of trial shall take sufficient time as after

framing of charges on 27.03.2022, only 5 prosecution witnesses have been

examined so far out of total 27, 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. 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.

6. The present petition, is hereby allowed.

7. 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)
03.04.2024                                                 JUDGE
Meenu



Whether speaking/reasoned        Yes/No
Whether reportable               Yes/No



                                        2 of 2