Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lali Singh vs State Of Punjab on 5 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143738
CRM-M-53740-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
218 CRM-M-53740-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 05.11.2024
LALI SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Malkiat Singh, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for
grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR no. 112 dated
20.07.2023 under sections 22 of NDPS act 1985, P.S. Dhanaula District
Barnala.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
'Copy ruqa, Officer in charge PS Dhanaula, today I SI/SHO
along with ASI Jasvir Singh 120, SCt Jagdeep Singh 569, SLC
Veerpal Kaur 946, SLC Amarjeet Kaur 939, Ct Gulkaranpreet
Singh 792 and PHG Ajit Singh 47904 with laptop, printer and
investigation kit on Govt vehicle numbered PB-65BA- 8124 driven
by Ct Tejinderjit Singh 1017 for the purpose of patrolling and
checking of suspicious persons and vehicles were present at Bhikhi
T-point Dhanaula. At around 04.00PM one special secret informer
came and gave an information to I SI/SHO that Lalli Singh s/o
Bhola Singh, Jasvir Kaur w/o Dogar Singh, Shinder Kaur w/o
Gobind Singh and Fambo w/o Rohi Singh all r/o backside Ram
Bagh Barnala do the business of selling intoxicating tablets on
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143738
foot. Today also they are seen on foot in the area of grain market
Dhanaula for selling the intoxicating tablets. If they will be
searched in the area of Grain market Dhanaula then they can be
apprehended along with heavy quantity of intoxicating Lablets.
The information is true and reliable. Therefore, the act of Lalli
Singh s/o Bhola Singh, Jasvir Kaur w/o Dogar Singh, Shinder
Kaur w/o Gobind Singh and Fambo w/o Rohi Singh all r/o
backside Ram Bagh Barnala intoxicating tablets makes out of
selling the an offence u/s 22/61/85 NDPS Act. Therefore, a ruqa for
the registration of a case against Lalli Singh s/o Bhola Singh,
Jasvir Kaur w/o Dogar Singh, Shinder Kaur w/o Gobind Singh and
Fambo w/o Rohi Singh all 1/0 backside Ram Bagh Barnala is
being sent to PS by hand PHG Ajit Singh 47904 after typing and
after taking its print out. After the registration the number of the
case shall be informed. Control room Barnala shall be informed. I
SI/SHO along with fellow officials am leaving in the search of
accused to Grain market Dhanaula. At Bhikhi T-point Dhanaula at
04.25PM SD/ Lakhwinder Singh SI/SHO PS Dhanaula date
20.07.2023.'
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and as per the
allegations, 1000 loose tablets were recovered from one polythene bag
from the possession of the petitioner and other co-accused whereas as per
the prosecution case, the polythene was in possession of co-accused
Jasvir Kaur, Fambo Kaur and Shinder Kaur. He submits that co-accused
Fabbo Kaur @ Fambo Kaur and Sinder Kaur have already been granted
regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 26.09.2024 and 1.10.2024
passed in CRM-M-47356-2024 and CRM-M-48156-2024. He further
submits that no fruitful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143738
behind the bars as conclusion of trial would take long time as out of total
9 Prosecution Witnesses, only 3 PWs have been examined so far.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on
advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and has filed
the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record.
According to which, the petitioner is behind bars for 1 year, 3 months and
12 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that the
petitioner is involved in many other FIRs but is not in a position to
controvert the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He
informs the Court that in the present FIR challan stands presented on
06.01.2024 and charges stands framed on 18.05.2024.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled
out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 1
year, 3 months and 12 days, co-accused have already been granted
concession of regular bail, no further recovery is to be made from the
petitioner and as per the principle of the criminal jurisprudence, no one
should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved beyond reasonable
doubt, whereas in the instant case, challan stands presented on 06.01.2024
and charges stands framed on 18.05.2024, out of 9 prosecution witnesses,
3 PWs have been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court to
infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and
therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period
would solve no purpose.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143738
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court
rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another",
2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of
bail is a general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in
correction home is an exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is
reproduced as under:-
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet
of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the general
rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a correction
home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is an exception.
Unfortunately, some of these basic principles appear to have been
lost sight of with the result that more and more persons are being
incarcerated and for longer periods. This does not do any good to
our criminal jurisprudence or to our society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the
discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the exercise
of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large number of
decisions rendered by this Court and by every High Court in the
country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to introspect whether
denying bail to an accused person is the right thing to do on the
facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity
to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the
investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an accused
person during investigations, a strong case should be made out for
placing that person in judicial custody after a charge sheet is filed.
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143738
Similarly, it is important to ascertain whether the accused was
participating in the investigations to the satisfaction of the
investigating officer and was not absconding or not appearing
when required by the investigating officer. Surely, if an accused is
not hiding from the investigating officer or is hiding due to some
genuine and expressed fear of being victimised, it would be a
factor that a judge would need to consider in an appropriate case.
It is also necessary for the judge to consider whether the accused
is a first-time offender or has been accused of other offences and if
so, the nature of such offences and his or her general conduct. The
poverty or the deemed indigent status of an accused is also an
extremely important factor and even Parliament has taken notice
of it by incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted by
a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a suspect
or an accused person to police custody or judicial custody. There
are several reasons for this including maintaining the dignity of an
accused person, howsoever poor that person might be, the
requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that
there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading to social and
other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-Inhuman
Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal) 416: 2017(5)
Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10 SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in
Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609
going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision,
reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way back
in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that bail is
not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also made to
Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356 wherein it was
observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143738
The provision for bail is therefore age-old and the liberal
interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a century old,
going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail should
be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is entirely
within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though
that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously and in
a humane manner and compassionately. Also, conditions for the
grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of
compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory."
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the
accused as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon
and ors (IV) v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC
98. Besides this, reference can be drawn upon that pre-conviction period
of the under-trials should be as short as possible keeping in view the
nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction
and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of
tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
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
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143738
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 land the petitioner in a situation of denial of the
concession of bail.
5. Decision:
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.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
05.11.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
