Punjab-Haryana High Court
Balwant Singh vs State Of Haryana on 7 May, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
221
1. CRM-M-23844-2023
Date of decision: May 7th, 2024
Balwant Singh
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
2. CRM-M-3920-2024
Harbans @ Bansi Lal
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Kartar Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-23844-2023).
Mr. Kushager Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioner (in CRM-M-3920-2024).
Ms. Deepshikha Chauhan, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
This order shall dispose of the above-mentioned petitions for
grant of regular bail as they arise out of same FIR i.e. FIR No.173 dated
30.07.2021 under Section 22(C)/27-A of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Sadar, Ratia,
District Fatehabad.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that even though they
were arrested way back on 30.07.2021 and challan was presented on
18.12.2021, the trial had not concluded as none of the 23 witnesses cited by
the prosecution had been examined till date. While drawing the attention of
this Court to the zimni orders, which have been annexed as
Annexure P-7, it has been asserted by the learned counsel that after the
charges were framed on 14.11.2023, on the two following dates, the
prosecution witnesses had not appeared to get their evidence recorded.
It has been prayed that in the circumstances, the petitioners cannot be
made to languish in custody for no fault of theirs. Learned counsel
while placing reliance upon judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP (Crl.)
No.6690/2022) decided on 25.01.2023 has submitted that in almost
identical circumstances, the Apex Court had granted the concession of
bail to the accused. Learned counsel have also submitted that their false
implication in the present case is evident from the fact that there is no
case registered against either of them under the NDPS Act.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer
and submissions made by the counsel opposite has not disputed the
stage/status of the trial, however, she submits that since the charges
were framed only in November 2023, there was no question of the
prosecution evidence being recorded earlier on. She submits that the
next date fixed before the trial Court is 27.05.2024 when in all
likelihood, the prosecution witnesses would be appearing to get their
testimony recorded.
4. On a pointed query put to the learned State counsel, she on
instructions has not controverted the factum of both the petitioners not
being involved in any other case under the NDPS Act, however, she
submits that petitioner-Harbans @ Bansi Lal has previously been
involved in a case under the Excise Act, in which he was convicted and
sentenced to pay `1,000/- fine.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material on record.
6. The petitioners have been in custody for close to three
years having been arrested on 30.07.2021. No doubt, a recovery of
6,000 tablets of alprazolam and 4,900 tablets of tramadol was allegedly
affected from them, however, Hon'ble the Supreme Court in
Dheeraj Kumar Shukla's case (supra) has observed as under:-
".... It is true that the quantity recovered from the
petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions of
Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted.
However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and the
fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a
half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of Section
37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this stage, more so
when the trial is yet to commence though the charges
have been framed."
7. The possibility of the trial concluding in the near future
does not seem possible. In the circumstances, the instant petitions are
allowed. The petitioners be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the
trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that
anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an
expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
8. Needless to say, in case the petitioners misuse the
concession of bail granted to them, the State would be at liberty to seek
cancellation of the same.
May 7th, 2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Puneet JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
PUNEET SACHDEVA Whether reportable : No
