Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sharda @ Sharda Devi vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036479
CRM-M-47397-2023 (O&M) 1
2024:PHHC:036479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
296 CRM-M-47397-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 13.03.2024
Sharda @ Sharda Devi ...... Petitioner
versus
State of Punjab ...... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
Present: Mr. Amardeep Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaswinder Singh Arora, DAG, Punjab.
****
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (Oral)
1. Present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.446
dated 25.11.2022, registered for the offences punishable under Section
22 of NDPS Act, 1985 at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn
Taran.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a case
of false implication and all the proceedings took place while siting in the
police station. The perusal of memo i.e. consent memo, arrest memo
and recovery memo already bear the FIR number mentioned above.
3. Counsel for the petitioner further argues that the petitioner
has already undergone incarceration for more than 01 year. Charges
were framed on 15.05.2023. The petitioner has no other criminal
antecedents.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036479
2024:PHHC:036479
4. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through
the records of the case.
5. The issue of details of FIR already mentioned on the
recovery memo came for consideration before Division Bench of this
Court in the case of Didar Singh @ Dara Vs. The State of Punjab, 2010
(3) RCR Criminal 337 wherein Division Bench held as under :-
"29. There is another infirmity on the record which further creates
a doubt about the entire prosecution case. As per the
prosecution, at the time of the recovery, various documents
were prepared. Those documents are Ex.PA, Ex.PB, Ex.PC,
Ex.PD, Ex.PE and Ex.PF. All these memos bear the FIR
number of the case. It is admitted case of the prosecution
that when these documents were prepared, the FIR was not
registered and FIR No. was not available as the same was
registered later on, on the ruqa sent by the police. It has not
been explained how all these memos contained the FIR
number, which was not existing at the time when these
memos were prepared. In Ajay Malik & Ors. v. State of U.T.,
Chandigarh, 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 649, this Court while
dealing with similar situation has observed that two
inferences could be drawn from such situation, i.e., either the
FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery of the
contraband or number of FIR was inserted in the document
after its registration. But in both situations, it seriously
reflects upon the integrity of the prosecution version. While
relying upon several other decisions, it was held that such
serious lapses in the prosecution case create a doubt to the
prosecution theory."
6. Coordinate Bench of this Court in CRM-M-10343 of 2021
titled as Ajay Kumar @ Nannu Vs. State of Punjab and other
connected matters, in order dated 31.03.2021 held as under :-
"(iii) that mentioning of number of FIR and
additional offences in the recovery memo shows
manipulation and fabrication of recovery memo
subsequently in the police station which denudes
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036479
2024:PHHC:036479
recovery memo of any sanctity and strikes out
integrity and shatters credibility of the
prosecution version and entitles the petitioners to
grant of bail. In support of his arguments Mr.
Vipul Jindal,learned Counsel for the petitioners
has placed reliance on the observations in
judgments passed in Ajay Malik Vs. State of U.T.
Chandigarh : 2009(3) RCR (Criminal) 649
(P&H); Didar Singh @ Dara Vs. State of Punjab
: 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 337 (P&H); where
mentioning of subsequent details in recovery
memo was held to affect sanctity/credibility of
recovery memo and Criminal Appeal No.1809 of
2009 titled as 'Ram Chander Sharma @ Pandit
Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)' decided on 01.12.2020
(SC); CRM-M-38153-2019 (O&M) titled as
'Satish Kumar Vs. State of Punjab' decided on
11.02.2020; CRM-M-42370-2019 (O&M) titled
as 'Tarsem Lal Vs. State of Punjab' decided on
17.09.2020; CRM-M- 44921-2019 titled as
'Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on
18.02.2020; CRM-M-32615-2018 titled as 'Rinku
Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on
07.08.2018; CRM-M-61999-2018 titled as
'Jatinder Vashisht Vs. State of Punjab' decided
on 26.03.2019; CRM-M- 34433-2019 titled as
'Harvinder Singh @ Shammi Vs. State of Punjab'
decided on 25.11.2019; CRM-20778-2018 in
CRAS2212-SB-2016 titled as 'Kashmir Singh @
Koki Vs. State of Punjab' decided on 24.01.2019;
CRM-19587-2019 in CRA-S-2884-SB-2016 titled
as 'Charno Vs.State of Punjab' decided on
16.08.2019; CRM-M36504-2020 (O&M) titled
as 'Rajandeep Singh @ Ghughi Vs.State of
Punjab' decided on 28.01.2021 and Mustkeem@
Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan (SC): 2011(3)
RCR (Criminal) 766 where bail was
granted/suspension of sentence was allowed on
this ground.
xxx xxx xxx
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036479
2024:PHHC:036479
16. In Mustakeem @ Sirajudeen Vs. State of
Rajasthan : AIR 2011 SC 2769 it was held by
Hon'ble Supreme Court that if the recovery
memos were prepared at the Police Station itself
then the same would lose its sanctity. In Ajay
Malik Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh : 2009(3)
RCR (Criminal) 649 (P&H) it was held by this
Court that presence of FIR details on recovery
memos etc. leads to two inferences: either the
FIR was registered prior to the alleged recovery
of contraband or the number of FIR was inserted
in these documents after its registration in both
the situations it seriously reflects upon the
integrity of the prosecution version. This view
was upheld and reiterated by the Division Bench
of this Court in Didar Singh @ Dara Vs. State of
Punjab : 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 337 (P&H)
and mentioning of such details in recovery memo
was held to affect sanctity/credibility of recovery
memo. In Criminal Appeal No.1809 of 2009
titled as 'Ram Chander Sharma @ Pandit Vs.
State (NCT of Delhi)' decided on 01.12.2020
(SC); CRM-M-38153-2019 (O&M) titled as
'Satish Kumar Vs. State of Punjab' decided on
11.02.2020; CRM-M-42370-2019 (O&M) titled
as 'Tarsem Lal Vs. State of Punjab' decided on
17.09.2020; CRM-M-44921-2019 titled as
Gurdeep Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on
18.02.2020; CRM-M-32615-2018 titled as
'Rinku Singh Vs. State of Punjab' decided on
07.08.2018; CRM-M-61999-2018 titled as
'Jatinder Vashisht Vs. State of Punjab' decided
on 26.03.2019; CRM-M-34433-2019 titled as
'Harvinder Singh @ Shammi Vs. State of
Punjab' decided on 25.11.2019; CRM-20778-
2018 in CRA-S-2212- SB-2016 titled as
'Kashmir Singh @ Koki Vs.State of Punjab'
decided on 24.01.2019; CRM-19587-2019 in
CRA-S-2884-SB-2016 titled as 'Charno Vs.
State of Punjab' decided on 16.08.2019; CRM-
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036479
2024:PHHC:036479
M-6504-2020 (O&M) titled as 'Rajandeep
Singh @ Ghughi Vs.State of Punjab' decided on
28.01.2021 and Mustkeem@ Sirajudeen Vs.
State of Rajasthan (SC): 2011(3)RCR
(Criminal) 766 bail was granted/suspension of
sentence was allowed on this ground.
xxx xxx xxx
20. In view of the above, the petitions are
allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be
released on regular bail on furnishing of
personal bond and bond of one surety in heavy
amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief
Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate
concerned."
7. In the present case the most material witness i.e. the gazetted
officer who is stated to be witness to whole of the recovery in his
testimony has admitted certain facts which put whole of the prosecution
under reasonable doubt.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the present case, the instant petition deserves to be allowed. The
petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing bail/surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned. However, in addition to conditions that may be imposed by
the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned, the petitioner shall remain
bound by the following conditions :-
(i) The petitioner shall not mis-use the liberty granted.
(ii) The petitioner shall not tamper with any evidence oral
or documentary during the trial.
(iii) The petitioner shall not absent herself on any date
before the trial.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to
the one alleged in the present case.
(v) The petitioner shall deposit her passport, if any with
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036479
2024:PHHC:036479
the trial Court.
(vi) The petitioner shall give her cellphone number to the
police authorities and shall not change her cell-phone
number without permission of the trial Court.
(vii) The petitioner shall not in any manner try to delay the
trial.
9. In case of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions and
those which may be imposed by the Trial Court, the prosecution shall be
at liberty to move cancellation of bail of the petitioner.
10. Ordered accordingly.
11. Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be
construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
12. Since the main case has been decided, pending
miscellaneous application, if any, shall also stands disposed off.
(PANKAJ JAIN)
JUDGE
13.03.2024
Dinesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036479
6 of 6
