Punjab-Haryana High Court
Keshav Khera @ Kaku vs State Of Punjab on 20 March, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040093
207 2024:PHHC:040093
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-36103-2023
DECIDED ON: 20.03.2024
KESHAV KHERA @ KAKU
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG 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.95, dated 21.06.2019, under
Sections 21, 22 of NDPS Act, 1985 (Sections 25/27 of Arms Act added later on),
registered at Police Station Gate Hakima Amritsar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case and alleged recovery i.e., 900 intoxicant
tablets and 15 grams of heroin were effected from a polythene envelope, but not
from the conscious possession of the petitioner. He also asserts qua the violation of
policy/circular dated 04.03.2015 issued by Government of Punjab from the office of
Director General of Police, as police party was in a private vehicle, which is
otherwise not permissible and in case of doing so, during the course of
investigation, it was duty bound to record the details of vehicle i.e., number, type,
driver's name and payment details.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040093
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
petitioner is a habitual offender, who is involved in multiple cases and the quantity
of contraband is commercial in nature.
4. Heard, learned counsel for respective parties.
5. Considering the custody period suffered by the petitioner i.e., 1 year, 2
days, wherein recovery of contraband was not effected from the conscious
possession of the petitioner added with the fact that conclusion of trial shall take
sufficient time, as out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, only 1 has been examined
so far after framing of charges on 03.04.2023, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping him behind bars for an indefinite 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.
6. 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.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:040093
7. In the 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.
8. The present petition, is hereby allowed.
9. 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)
20.03.2024 JUDGE
Meenu
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
