Punjab-Haryana High Court
Surinder Kumar Alias Apple vs State Of Punjab on 7 November, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144898
CRM-M-29657-2024 1
229
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-29657-2024
Date of Decision: 07.11.2024
Surinder Kumar @ Apple
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Rituraj Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Thind, DAG Punjab
*****
KIRTI SINGH, J.(Oral)
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been
invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.209 dated
10.12.2022, under Sections 21, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at Police
Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur.
2. The contents of the above-mentioned FIR are reproduced herein
below:-
To SHO, Police Station Bullowal Jai Hind today I, SI along with ASI
Kashmiri Lal No. 868/HPR, CT Subhash Chander No. 1265/HPR,
PHG Budh Parkash No. 25882 carrying laptop and printer were
going in the area of Nasrala, Taragarh, Mandial etc. in connection
with patrolling and search of bad elements and when the police party
turned from Hoshiarpur -Jalandhar road towards Taragarh then a
person having Hindu personality seen coming on a Scootery and on
looking the police party, he suddenly stopped his scoottry and tried to
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144898
turn back, but since his scootry got slipped, he fell down on the
ground, he got up and tried to turn then myself SI Maninder Singh
has stopped his car and apprehended him with the help of associate
officials and asked his name, then he disclosed his name as Surinder
Kumar @ Apple son of Hari Krishan resident of Ward No. 3, Sham
Churasi, Police Station Bullowal, District Hoshiarpur, then SI
Maninder Singh has informed him about his name, rank and posting
and said that I, SI Maninder Singh No. 522/JR posted as Incharge
Police Post Nasrala, Police Station Bullowal District Hoshiarpur. I
and my associate officials are in police uniform. I have doubt that
there is some intoxicant material in your possession, therefore search
of you and your Scootry bearing registration No. PB07-AT-9210
colour silver Make MAESTRO is to be conducted, but you have legal
right that you can get done the search of you and your Scootry
bearing registration No. PB07-AT-9210 colour silver Make
MAESTRO in the presence of any Magistrate or Gazetted officer, then
arrangements for the same can be made or you can be taken before
them. Therefore said person said that you can conduct the search of
me and my Scootry bearing. registration No. PB07-AT-9210 colour
silver Make MAESTRO, I have trust upon you, therefore his consent
memo has been prepared and prior to conducting his search, SI
Maninder Singh has given notice under section 50 of NDPS Act to the
said person and prior conduct his search, SI Maninder Singh
has tried to join any public witness in the police party but everybody
shown their helplessness but nobody got ready for the same.
Thereafter SI Maninder Singh has conducted the search of said
Surinder Kumar alias Apple in the presence of associate officials,
then a heavy polythene colour black is found from the right side
pocket of his Upper, which has been opened and checked and on
checking, same is found to Intoxicant material in the said polythene
and on weighing the said intoxicant material through weighing
machine, its weight is found to be 260 grams, which has been put into
same black colour polythene and after putting the said black colour
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144898
polythene in plastic box, turned the same into parcel and sealed the
parcel with his seal bearing impression MS and also prepared the
sample of seal and after using seal, the same is handed over to ASI
Kashmiri Lal No. 868/HPR. The said parcel containing intoxicant
material has been taken into police possession and Scootry bearing
registration No. PB07-AT-9210 colour silver Make MAESTRO has
also been taken into police possession through memo. Accused
Surender Kumar above said could not present any permit or license
to keep the said intoxicant material in his possession, therefore
accused Surender Kumar @ Apple, while keeping said intoxicant
material in his possession, has committed offence under section 22 of
NPS Act, 1985, therefore the Ruqa has been written and the same has
been sent to the Police Station by the hand of PHG Budh Parkash No.
25882 for registration of case, after register case, number of the same
be intimated, special reports of the case be sent to the control room.
Officers be intimated about it. Special reports be prepared and sent
through ASI Jaswinder Singh 106 Hsp to the Illaqa Magistrate and
officers. Control room be informed through wireless."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated in this case. He further submits that he has undergone actual
custody of 01 year, 05 months and 05 days and three more cases are registered
against him, however, he is on bail in all those cases.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody
certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 01 year, 05 months and
05 days and there are three more cases registered against him, however, he is on
bail in all those cases. He submits that charges were framed on 11.12.2023 and out
of 12 prosecution witnesses, 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined. He,
however, submits that in view of strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144898
serious allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to the concession of
regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is
involved in three more criminal cases, reference is placed upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi Vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2012 (2) SCC 382 in which, it is held that the facts and circumstances of
the present case are to be seen while deciding a bail application and the bail
application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the ground that the
petitioner is involved in other/another case(s). The relevant portion of the said
judgment is reproduced herein-below:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis of criminal
antecedents, the claim of the second respondent cannot be rejected.
In other words, it is the duty of the Court to find out the role of the
accused in the case in which he has been charged and other
circumstances such as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction
of the Court etc."
7. The charges were framed on 11.12.2023 and out of total 12
prosecution witness, 05 prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. The
petitioner has undergone actual custody of 01 year, 05 months and 05 days. Further
detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose and will be violation
of Article 21 of the Constitution of India including the right to speedy trial, and is
against the principle "Bail is a rule, jail is an exception" as elucidated in the
judgment of Apex Court in "Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
another", (2018) 3 SCC 22.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144898
8. Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not
consistent with Article 21. While deprivation of personal liberty for some period
may not be avoidable, period of deprivation pending trial/appeal cannot be unduly
long. The Apex Court in "Abdul Rehman Antulay and others v. R.S. Nayak and
another", 1992(2) RCR (Criminal) 634 observed that Right to Speedy Trial
flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of
investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial.
9. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner shall be
established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the charges have been
framed and only five prosecution witness has been examined out of 12 prosecution
witnesses till date. Therefore, this Court is of the view that further incarceration of
the petitioner would not serve any purpose.
10. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may
prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be
released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioner
shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence similar to the offence
of which he is accused of, or for commission of which he is
suspected.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:144898
facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to
the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
10. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall
be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of bail before this Court.
11. However, nothing stated above shall be construed as a final expression
of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court would proceed
independently of the observations made in the present case which are only for the
purpose of adjudicating the present bail petition.
(KIRTI SINGH)
07.11.2024 JUDGE
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
