Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bahadur Singh vs State Of Punjab on 22 March, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042151
236 2024:PHHC:042151
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38303-2023 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 22.03.2024
BAHADUR SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. P.S. Hundal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vikramjeet Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Karunesh Kaushal, AAG, Punjab.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973 has been invoked seeking regular bail to the petitioner in
FIR No. 135, dated 28.08.2022, under Sections 15-C, 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act,
1985, registered at Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda.
2. Learned Senior counsel has contended that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in the present case, as nothing has been recovered from his
conscious possession and he was merely the occupant of the car from which 40 kg
of poppy husk was recovered. He has further contended that the recovery
whatsoever has been effected is non-commercial quantity. It is submitted that the
person who is driving the car is the owner of the car as well as the truck and on that
surmises the petitioner has been nominated as an accused. Apart from that no direct
incriminating material has been put forth by the prosecution so far.
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042151
CRM-M-38303-2023 (O&M) -2-
3. Custody certificate of the petitioner filed by learned State counsel is
taken on record. Learned State counsel prays for dismissal of the present petition
submitting that the petitioner is a habitual offender, as he is involved in three other
cases of similar nature. Though he could not controvert the fact that out of those
three cases in two cases he is on bail.
4. Faced with the situation, learned Senior counsel submits that petitioner
stood acquitted in FIR Nos. 15 dated 21.01.2018 and 67, dated 11.09.2018 by
Judge, Special Court, Bathinda vide judgment of acquittal dated 05.02.2021 and
08.03.2021 respectively.
5. Be that as it may, considering the custody period undergone by the
petitioner i.e. 1 year 6 months and 23 days as of now, added with the fact that out of
total 23 prosecution witnesses only one has been examined till date after framing of
charges on 12.04.2023, meaning thereby, the trial is moving at snail's pace, this
Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by detaining
the petitioner behind bars for an indefinite period, which would also curtail his right
to life and liberty as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and is
also against the basic principle of "Bail is rule and Jail is an exception".
6. 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
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:042151
CRM-M-38303-2023 (O&M) -3-
looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with respect to
the evidence in the other pending cases.
7. In view of the aforesaid 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. 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)
22.03.2024 JUDGE
Sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
