Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 November, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145114
CRM-M-54390-2024 -1-
219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54390-2024 (O&M)
DECIDED ON: 07.11.2024
KULDEEP SINGH
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Ms. Monika Tanwar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
483 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.169 dated
14.07.2024 under Section 21 of the NDPS Act (Sections 22, 29 of the NDPS
Act, 1985 added later on) and Section 25 of Arms Act, registered at Police
Station Navi Baradari, District Jalandhar.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
"Station House Officer, Police Station Navi Baradari,
Commissionerate Jalandhar. Jai Hind. Today I SI along
with S.I. Surjit Singh No. 2446, SR/CT Ranjit Singh 1821,
SR/CT Sukhdev Singh 3176/CT Sandeep Kumar 1005, CT
Jagraj Singh No. 2135, alongwith Laptop and Printer
and investigation kit, on Government vehicle PB-08-DG-
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145114
9063 Mark Mahindra Bolero, whose driver is CT
Lovepreet Singh 2339 were present for patrolling and
checking of suspicious persons and drug smugglers near
BSF Chowk, Jalandhar. Then one patriot person came to
me Sl and gave information that in Jalandhar City
Jagroop Singh son of Tarlok Singh resident of Village
Jama Rai, District Tarn Taran, Bhavjot Singh son of
Sarwan Singh Rio Village Doghri, District Jalandhar,
Aman R/o Village Johal D Wala, District Tarn Taran and
Happy resident of Ladhu Kalsi Kalan District Tarn Taran
in connivance with each other are doing business of
selling heroin, illegal weapons and ammunition. They
mostly call the clients to vacant places and supply the
heroin and weapons. Today out of them two persons
Jagroop Singh son of Tarlok Singh resident of Village
Jamarai, District Tarn Taran and Bhavjot Singh son of
Sarwan Singh R/o Village Doghri, District Jalandhar are
by keeping heroin and weapons in car No. PB-63-D-6500
Mark Swift colour white are coming towards Railway
Station side and Guru Nanakpura Railway crossing to
sell the heroin and weapons. If patrolling is done on the
vacant place in this area, then both of them can be
arrested along with car, heroin and weapons. As the
information is correct and reliable, offence u/s 21- 61 -
85 of NDPS Act, 25/54/59 of the Arms Act are made out,
as such the writing under the above-mentioned sections is
sent through hand of CT Jugraj Singh 2135 to the police
station for registration of the case. After registration of
the case the number be intimated. Officials and control
room be informed. Special report after being issued be
sent to llaqa Magistrate and officials. Control room be
informed. I SI along with companions are going to the
area informed by the patriot person. Today in the area of
near BSF Chowk Jalandhar at 04:30 PM. SD/ SI Special
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145114
Cell, Commissionerate Jalandhar dated 14.07.2024.
Today in the police station: - on receipt of the above
writing in the police station the above-mentioned FIR
under the above-mentioned sections is registered and the
original writing along with copy of FIR is sent for further
proceedings through the official coming CT Jugraj Singh
2135 to the spot, to the SI. After issuing the special report
are sent through hand of CT Sunil Bains 1131 to the
Illaga Magistrate and the officials and Control Room are
being informed."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner
has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement
of co-accused Bikramjit Singh and except the disclosure statement, no
incriminating material has been put forth by the prosecution to connect the
petitioner with the alleged commissioning of offence. It has been further
asserted that co-accused namely Jaswant Kaur @ Khando, Sahil Arora and
Parvesh Kumar Goyal have been granted the concession of anticipatory bail
by this Court vide orders dated 26.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), 14.10.2024
(Annexure P-4) and 18.10.2024 (Annexure P-5), passed in CRM-M-48315-
2024, CRM-M-49589-2024, CRM-M-51164-2024 respectively.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that the petitioner is
a habitual offender as he is involved in twelve more cases.
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145114
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 02 months
and 15 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration; the petitioner
has been nominated as an accused only on the basis of disclosure statement
of co-accused Bikramjit Singh and except the disclosure statement, no
incriminating material has been put forth by the prosecution to connect the
petitioner with the alleged commissioning of offence; co-accused namely
Jaswant Kaur @ Khando, Sahil Arora and Parvesh Kumar Goyal have been
granted the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court vide orders dated
26.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), 14.10.2024 (Annexure P-4) and 18.10.2024
(Annexure P-5), passed in CRM-M-48315-2024, CRM-M-49589-2024,
CRM-M-51164-2024 respectively in addition to the fact that challan is yet to
be presented to Court, which is suffice for this Court to infer that the
conclusion of trial will take a long time for which the petitioner cannot be
detained behind the bars for an indefinite period.
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
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145114
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. 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-
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145114
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. The provision for
bail is therefore age-old and the liberal interpretation to
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145114
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
basic and 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
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145114
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 land the petitioner in a situation of denial of
concession of bail.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and
surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
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)
07.11.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
