Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manjit Kaur vs State Of Punjab on 3 April, 2024
117 2024:PHHC:044491
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-14336-2024
Date of Decision: April 03, 2024
MANJIT KAUR ........Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ........Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA
Present:Ms. Bhupinder K. Bhangu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kewal Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
****
HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL)
By way of present petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC,
prayer has been for quashing of the order dated 12.02.2024 passed by the
Court of learned Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala whereby, son of the
petitioner was granted concession of interim bail subject to furnishing of
personal bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties i.e. one surety
in the like amount and one cash surety amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- with a
condition that the petitioner will surrender before the Court positively in
case, the contents of salt of intoxicant tablets fall under the category of
commercial in nature.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the
mother of accused namely, Sukhchain Singh who is a young boy of 21
years of age and is working as a labourer and thus the conditions imposed
vide order dated 12.02.2024 by the learned Judge, Special Court,
Kapurthala are onerous and in fact result in denial of benefit of bail in
favour of son of the petitioner, accordingly, the same needs to be
modified.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the prayer
made in the present petition while submitting that son of the petitioner is
2024:PHHC:044491 -2-
CRM-M-14336-2024
involved in an offence relating to the provisions of NDPS Act and thus, in
order to secure his presence before the Court concerned during the trial,
the conditions imposed vide impugned order warrant no interference.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through
the paper-book.
5. A perusal of the record shows that petitioner as well as her
son who has been arrayed as an accused in FIR No.0249 dated
19.12.2023 registered under Sections 22, 29, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act at
P.S. Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala are not having sufficient means
to fulfill the conditions imposed vide order dated 12.02.2024 by the learned
Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala. The son of petitioner is a young boy of
21 years of age and petitioner herself happens to be a labourer, as such
conditions imposed vide impugned order are highly excessive for them
which may result in denial of benefit of bail in favour of son of petitioner.
Reliance in this regard can also be made to the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Guddan @ Roop Narayan Vs. State
of Rajasthan 2023(1) RCR (Criminal) 762". Accordingly, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, the conditions imposed vide impugned
order are modified to the extent that son of the petitioner shall furnish
personal bonds to the tune of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like
amount with a condition that he will surrender before the Court positively if
contents of salt of tablets fall under the category of commercial quantity.
03.04.2024 (HARKESH MANUJA)
Tejwinder JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
