Punjab-Haryana High Court
Nirbhai Singh @ Soni vs State Of Punjab on 3 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:044493
212
2024:PHHC:044493
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-453-2024
DECIDED ON: 03.04.2024
NIRBHAI SINGH @ SONI
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Yashpal Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked for the 4th time under
Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.37, dated
25.03.2021, under Section 22 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Bassi
Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab (Annexure P-1).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 17 injections of
Buprenorphine has been recovered from the possession of the petitioner and 13
injections of Buprenorphine has been recovered from the possession of co-accused
namely Gurpreet Singh @ Bunty, who has been granted the concession of regular
bail vide order dated 16.09.2021 passed in CRM-M-30088-2021 by a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court.
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:044493
the petitioner is involved in one another case, therefore, does not deserve the
concession of regular bail.
4. Be that as it may, considering the custody period suffered by the
petitioner i.e., 3 years and 6 days and in the other case, he is on bail as is evident
from the custody certificate and co-accused namely Gurpreet Singh @ Bunty 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
22.07.2021, only 3 prosecution witnesses have been examined so far out of total 12
prosecution witnesses, 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:044493
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)
03.04.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
