Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dilbagh Singh @ Bagga vs State Of Punjab on 13 March, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036258
104 CRM-10357-2024 in/and 2024:PHHC:036258 -1-
274 CRM-M-37409-2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
104 CRM-10357-2024 in/and
274 CRM-M-37409-2023
DATE OF DECISION:13.03.2024
DILBAGH SINGH @ BAGGA ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Ms. Satwant Mehta, Advocate for the
applicant/petitioner(s).
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
CRM-10357-2024
This application has been filed for placing on record the
interim orders passed by the Trial Court in case No. NDPS 154 of 2023
(FIR No. 78 dated 15.07.2021) as Annexure P-5 to P-17.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed subject to all just exceptions and above-mentioned documents
are taken on record.
Main case
1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.07, dated 31.01.2021 (Annexure P-1), under Sections 22 and 29 of
the NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District
Tarn Taran.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of disclosure
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036258
104 CRM-10357-2024 in/and 2024:PHHC:036258 -2-
274 CRM-M-37409-2023
statement made by co-accused Rahul Bharghav who stated that the
tablets carried at alleged offending vehicle were to be delivered to the
present petitioner. Though there is no direct evidence and only on that
basis, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant FIR.
3. Learned State counsel has produced the custody certificate
of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record. He has
referred to other cases in which the petitioner is involved as has been
detailed in the custody certificate also. He seeks dismissal of the instant
petition urging that the petitioner is a habitual offender.
4. Be that as it may, except disclosure statement there is no
direct evidence against the petitioner at this stage, wherein he has
already suffered incarceration for a period of 1 year, 9 months and 24
days. This Court is sanguine of the fact that co-accused Sandeep Kumar
@ Sandeep Kumar Budania was released on regular bail vide order
dated 11.03.2024 by this Court in CRM-M-11375-2024 and the
petitioner is on better footing than the co-accused.
5. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of
the petitioner in 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, while referring Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting bail, the
criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the
same time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the
course of trial has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in
that case alone and not with respect to the evidence in the other pending
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036258
104 CRM-10357-2024 in/and 2024:PHHC:036258 -3-
274 CRM-M-37409-2023
cases. In such eventuality, strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on
account of pendency of other cases/convictions in all probability would
lend the petitioner in a situation of denial the concession of bail.
6. Looking into the totality of facts and the discussions made
hereinabove, this Court is of the firm view that no useful purpose would
be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars for uncertain period,
wherein bail is a rule and jail is an exception and it would also violate
the principle of right to speedy trial and expeditious disposal under
Article 21 of Constitution of India, as has been time and again discussed
by this Court, while realising the judgment of the Apex Court passed in
Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 131. Further, that out of 16 prosecution witnesses, none
has been examined so far.
7. In light of the above, the petitioner is directed to be released
on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction
of trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
8. The present petition is, hereby, allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
13.03.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036258
3 of 3
