Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pooja Rani vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048658
CRM-M No.15876 of 2024 -1- 2023:PHHC: 048658
125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.15876 of 2024
Date of Decision:-09.04.2024
POOJA RANI
... Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB
... Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY.
Present:- Mr. Bhupinder K. Bhangu Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab.
*****
SANJIV BERRY, J.
The instant petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been
preferred by the petitioner for setting aside of the impugned order dated
22.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Judge, Special Court,
Kapurthala, to the extent that the additional condition imposed regarding
furnishing of one cash surety amounting to ₹2 lacs while granting
concession of regular bail to the petitioner's uncle namely Shinder Singh @
Tota in the following FIR (Annexure P-1):-
FIR No. Dated Sections Police Station
0012 28.01.2024 21(b) and 29 of Subhanpur, District Kapurthala
the NDPS Act
2. It is, inter alia, contended by learned counsel for the petitioner
that the uncle of petitioner namely Shinder Singh @ Tota has been
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048658
CRM-M No.15876 of 2024 -2- 2023:PHHC: 048658
implicated by the police in a false case and recovery has been planted on
him. The said Shinder Singh @ Tota had filed application for grant of
regular bail after his arrest, which was allowed by the learned Judge, Special
Court, Kapurthala vide impugned order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-2),
however, the learned Court imposed the condition that he will be released
only on furnishing of personal bonds to the tune of ₹50,000/- with two
sureties i.e. one surety in the like amount and one cash surety amounting to
₹2 lac subject to the conditions mentioned in the order.
3. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the alleged recovery from the petitioner's uncle is non commercial in nature
and petitioner is a poor person doing labour work and the petitioner as well
as her uncle, namely Shinder Singh @ Tota, belong to the labour class and
are unable to furnish the cash surety of ₹2 lac as per the order of the learned
Trial Court and such a condition imposed by learned Court would
tantamount to denial of benefit of bail, hence the prayer has been made to
modify the same.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has not disputed the factual
matrix of the case and has admitted passing of the impugned order dated
22.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) by learned trial Court, however, he contends that
the petitioner's uncle was found keeping in possession 15 grams of heroin
when apprehended by the police and same does not fall within the purview
of commercial quantity.
5. Arguments heard.
6. It is not disputed that Shinder Singh @ Tota had been arrested
by the police in the instant FIR (Annexure P-1) on the allegations of keeping
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048658
CRM-M No.15876 of 2024 -3- 2023:PHHC: 048658
in possession 15 grams of heroin, non commercial quantity. It is also not
disputed that the learned Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala while allowing
application under Section 439 for regular bail had passed impugned order
(Annexure P-2) on 22.02.2024, operative part thereof reads as under:-
xxx xxx xxx
"8. Perusal of police record shows that applicant/accused is
presently in custody since from the date of his arrest in this
case i.e. 28.01.2024. As per statement of ASI Sukhchain Singh,
other FIR's have also been found registered against the
applicant/accused under various offences including NDPS Act.
However, recovery of alleged Heroin allegedly effected from
the present applicant/accused in the present case falls under the
category of non-commercial quantity. The presentation of
challan and conclusion of the trial would take long time. No
useful purpose will be served by detaining the
applicant/accused in custody for indefinite period, rather it
would be a burden on State's exchequer. So, keeping in view
the facts and circumstances of this case, applicant/accused is
ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing the bail
bonds to the tune of ₹50,000/- with two sureties i.e. one surety
in the like amount and one cash surety amounting to ₹2 lac,
subject to following conditions:-
I. That the applicant/accused will not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threats or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
II. That the applicant/accused will not leave the territory of
India without prior permission of the Court.
III. That the applicant/accused will appear in the court on
each and every date of hearing."
xxx xxx xxx
7. The case put forth by the petitioner, duly supported by her
affidavit is that she is a labourer and her uncle Shinder Singh @ Tota is in
custody who is also working as a labourer and they have no means to satisfy
the condition imposed by learned Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala for
depositing ₹2 lacs as cash surety in terms of the order dated 22.02.2024
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048658
CRM-M No.15876 of 2024 -4- 2023:PHHC: 048658
(Annexue P-2).
8. It is relevant to mention here that while dealing with the similar
situation, Hon'ble Apex Court passed judgment cited as Guddan @ Roop
Narayan vs. State of Rajasthan, 2023 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 762, relevant
part of observations made therein is as under:-
xxx xxx xxx
"Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 439-Bail- Excessive
conditions of bail imposed by the High Court- Bail granted but
in-fact, in practical manifestation, acted as a refusal to the
grant of bail- The fact that the Appellant was not able to pay
the amount, and in default thereof is still languishing in jail, is
sufficient indication that he was not able to make up the
amount- Conditions of bail cannot be so onerous that their
existence itself tantamounts to refusal of bail-Any other accused
in a similar circumstance at this point would not be in custody-
Appellant, because of the conditions imposed, has not been
able to comply with the excessive requirements, be detained in
custody endlessly? Held that to keep the Appellant in jail, that
too in a case where he normally would have been granted bail
for the alleged offences, is not just a symptom of injustice, but
injustice itself."
xxx xxx xxx
9. Undisputedly, the case of the petitioner is identical to the facts
and circumstances as in Guddan's case (supra).
10. Considering the fact that the petitioner is a labourer and even
accused belongs to family of labourers, it would not be feasible and
practicable for them to arrange a cash surety of ₹2 lac to comply with the
impugned order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-2). Imposing of such
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:048658
CRM-M No.15876 of 2024 -5- 2023:PHHC: 048658
condition, in a way tentamount to refusal of the benefit of bail to the poor
accused, therefore, in these circumstances, it is deemed appropriate and in
the interest of justice that the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure
P-2), so far, it require the petitioner to furnish cash surety of ₹2 lac is
unreasonable and unjust and as such is liable to be set aside. Accordingly,
the condition requiring the petitioner to furnish cash surety of ₹2 lac in terms
of the order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) is hereby set-aside and the
order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) is hereby modified to the extent that
Shinder Singh @ Tota, uncle of the petitioner shall furnish the personal bond
to the tune of ₹50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the
satisfaction of learned trial Court subject to the following conditions:-
i. That the applicant/accused will not directly or indirectly
make any inducement, threats or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from
disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer.
ii. That the applicant/accused will not leave the territory of
India without prior permission of the Court.
iii. That the applicant/accused will appear in the court on
each and every date of hearing.
11. The present petition is disposed of with the above modification
in the impugned order dated 22.02.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the
learned Judge, Special Court, Kapurthala.
(SANJIV BERRY)
JUDGE
09.04.2024
Gyan
i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No
5 of 5
