Punjab-Haryana High Court
Abdul Rehman @ Maani vs State Of Punjab on 14 May, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067434
222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-38314-2023
DATE OF DECISION: 14.05.2024
ABDUL REHMAN @ MAANI ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr.P.S.Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under
Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 02 dated
03.01.2023 under Section 22 and 29 of The Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 and Sections 353/186 IPC, registered
at P.S. City-II, Malerkotla, District Malerkotla.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the alleged
recovery made from the petitioner is 11 bottles of cough syrup make
Wincirex. He submits that the petitioner and his wife were falsely
implicated in this case as the petitioner was earlier involved in another
FIR No. 67 dated 03.05.2016. Brief facts are that on 03.01.2023, the
police officials raided the house of the petitioner without any female
police official. The wife of the petitioner objected to the behaviour of
the police officials who started using foul language with her. The wife
of the petitioner was even manhandled by them and slapped her after
bringing her in the street. Learned counsel for the petitioner
furthersubmits that neighbourers gathered in the street and the said
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067434
incident was witnessed by them. The petitioner is in custody since
03.01.2023.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of Court, learned State Counsel appearing on
advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has
produced FSL Report as well as custody certificate of the petitioner.
While referring to the FSL Report, learned State Counsel points out that
Codeine Phosphate was present in the said parcel which weighed 123.9
grams which would come to 1362.9 grams in total for 11 bottles making
it more than commercial quantity i.e. 1 kg. as per Schedule of The
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. He further submits
that the petitioner has been convicted in one more FIR No. 67 dated
03.05.2016 under Section 20 of NDPS Act, registered at P.S. City-I,
Malerkotla.
Be that as it may, considering the facts that the petitioner
has already suffered 1 year, 4 months and 9 days of custody in the
present FIR and in the above said FIR No. 67, the petitioner is on
regular bail after having undergone sentence of 3 years and 17 days out
of total sentence of 10 years and the appeal is pending in this Court in
that FIR. The charges have been framed in the present FIR on
14.09.2023 and out of total 14 prosecution witnesses, 5 have been
examined, meaning thereby, trial will take time to conclude. As far as
the pendency of other cases and involvement of the petitioner in other
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:067434
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 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.
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.
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 the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
The present petition is, hereby, allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
14.05.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
