Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakhwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 April, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046703
214 2024:PHHC:046703
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-15801-2024
DECIDED ON: 05.04.2024
LAKHWINDER SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bhandari, AAG 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.61, dated 06.04.2023, under
Sections 22 and 29 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Lehra, District
Sangrur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was
nominated as an accused on the basis of disclosure statement of co-accused namely
Manpreet Kaur from whom the recovery of 770 tablets of Tramadol and 270 tablets
of Alprasafe were recovered. He further submits that no recovery has been effected
from the possession of the petitioner.
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
the petitioner is involved in other cases, therefore does not deserve the concession
of bail at least at this stage.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:046703
4. Be that as it may, considering the fact that the recovery of contraband
has been effected from the possession of co-accused namely Manpreet Kaur, who is
in custody and the petitioner has suffered incarceration of 7 months, wherein
investigation is complete, challan stands presented and no recovery is to be effected
from the possession of the petitioner added with the fact that conclusion of trial
shall take sufficient time, as after framing of charges on 21.11.2023, out of total 15
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far, no useful purpose would be
served by keeping the petitioner behind bars for an uncertain period, which would
amount to infringement of his right to life and liberty, as enshrined under Article 21
of Constitution of India and is against the principle "bail is a rule and jail is an
exception", 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 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:046703
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)
05.04.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
