Punjab-Haryana High Court
Divya vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055632
CRM-M-18936-2024 2024:PHHC:055632
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
205
RM-M-18936-2024
C
Date of decision: 24.04.2024
Divya ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
*****
Present : Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate and
Ms. Akanksha, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Addl. A.G., Haryana
*****
AMAN CHAUDHARY. J (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.376, dated 01.07.2023,
registeredunderSections21oftheNDPSAct,1985(Section27-A/29addedlater
on) at Police Station Ambala Cantt., DistrictAmbala.
2. Learnedcounselcontendsthatthepetitionerisincustodyforthelast
8 months. Her name surfaced based on the disclosure statement of co-accused
Ravinder Kumar @ Ravi. He relies upon judgment passed by Hon'ble The
Supreme Court in the case of Tofan Singh vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2021 (1)
RCR (Crl.) 1. No recovery has been effected from her and she has been falsely
implicatedinthecase.Thesaidco-accusedfromwhomrecoveryof268gramsof
heroin was effected, has since been granted bail, after a custody of 8 monthsby
this Court vide order dated 19.03.2024, Annexure P-3. Charges were framed on
23.01.2024, however, none out of 20prosecutionwitnesseshavebeenexamined.
He also relies on the order passedbythisCourtinSandeepKumar@Gogivs.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055632
CRM-M-18936-2024 2024:PHHC:055632
-2-
State of Haryana in CRM-M-24505-2022 decided on 07.12.2022, wherein the
petitionerwasgrantedbailafteracustodyofalmost9months,onhishavingbeen
implicatedonthebasisofdisclosurestatementandnorecoverywaseffectedfrom
him. The petitioner is involved in one more case, wherein she is on bail and
alleged recovery was 8 grams of heroin. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in MaulanaMohd.AmirRashadivs.StateofU.P.
and others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
3. The custody certificate dated 22.04.2024, filed by learned State
counselistakenonrecord,asperwhich,thepetitionerisbehindbarsfor7months
and 29 days.
4. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
petitioner was specifically named by the co-accused from whomthecommercial
quantity of contraband was recovered and is involved in 1 more case under the
NDPS Act. He is however unable to controvert the submissions with regard to
stageofthecase,co-accusedhasbeengrantedbailandthepetitionerbeingonbail
in the other case.
5. Heard.
6. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd. Amir
Rashadi (supra) had held that, "As observed by the High Court, merely on the
basis of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be
rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
accusedinthecaseinwhichhehasbeenchargedandothercircumstancessuchas
possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the Court etc."
8. Consideringthefactsandcircumstancesofthecase,inparticularthat
the petitioner is in custody for last 7 months and 29 days; no recovery effected
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055632
CRM-M-18936-2024 2024:PHHC:055632
-3-
fromher;isonbailinanothercaseundertheNDPSAct;co-accusedhavingbeen
granted bail;chargeswereframedon23.01.2024;outofatotalof20prosecution
witnesses,nonehasbeenexaminedsofar;thetrialislikelytotakeaconsiderable
time,thusherfurtherincarcerationwouldbeviolativeofherrightenshrinedunder
Article 21 of the Constitution ofIndiaandtherigorsofSection37ofNDPSAct
canbedilutedbearinginmindtherighttoaspeedytrial,thus,thepresentpetition
for grant of regular bail deserves to be allowed.
9. As a result, the present petition isallowed.Thepetitionerisordered
to be released on regular bail, subject to her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction oftrialCourt/DutyMagistrateconcernedandsubjecttohernotbeing
required in any other case. The petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:-
(i) he petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the
T
trial.
(ii) he petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution
T
witnesses.
(iii) T he petitioner will appear before the trial Court on each and
every date fixed, unless is exempted by a specific order of
Court.
(iv) T he petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which, she is an accused, or for commission of
which she is suspected of.
(v) he petitioner shall not directly or indirectly coerce, induce,
T
threaten or promise to anypersonacquaintedwiththefactsof
thecasesoastodissuadehim/herfromdisclosingsuchfactsto
the Court or to any police officerortamperwiththeevidence
in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse her liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish her addressandmobilenumberto
theTrialCourtforthwithandshallnotchangethesametillthe
conclusionofthetrialandincaseforanyreason,thepetitioner
seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same shall be done
onlywithpriorintimationtothelearnedTrialCourt,statingthe
reason for the same.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country without prior
permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any other
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:055632
CRM-M-18936-2024 2024:PHHC:055632
-4-
condition, as deemed appropriate while releasing the petitioner.
10. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of the
aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail as
granted to the petitioner by this order.
11. Inviewoftheabove,itisclarifiedthattheobservationsmadeherein
are limited for thepurposeofpresentproceedingsandwouldnotbeconstruedas
anopiniononthemeritsofthecaseandthetrialwouldproceedindependentlyof
the aforesaid observations.
(AMAN CHAUDHARY)
JUDGE
2 4.04.2024
Hemant
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No
Whether reportable : Yes / No
4 of 4
