Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 8 November, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145981
CRM-M-30756-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.206 CRM-M-30756-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 08.11.2024
Kuldeep Singh ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Amandeep Singh Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kamalpreet Bawa, AAG, 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.76
dated 02.07.2022, under Sections 22, 61 and 85 of NDPS Act, 1985,
registered at Police Station Ghanour, Distt. Patiala.
2. The relevant part of the FIR is reproduced below:-
"Copy of Original Rukka, SHO PS Ghanaur, Jai Hind
today I ASI along with PHG Nachhatar Singh 30111, PHG Holi
Ram 30780 in private vehicle with laptop printer were on
patrolling at Seal Ghanoor Road near village Baghora at about
11 AM. Then the secret informer informed in that Kuldeep
Singh son of Angrej Singh, resident of Baghora police station
Ghanoor, aged about 30 years, body thin and agile, and tied
yellow parna, had used to brought intoxicant pills from outside
the state and sold them in Punjab, who is now coming from Seal
Side village with a large quantity of narcotic pills, if the
barricading be done now, Kuldeep Singh can be caught with
the said large quantity of narcotic pills, the information is
reliable and trustable. Kuldeep Singh son of Angrej Singh
resident of Baghora police station Ghanoor has committed
offence u/s 22-61-85 NDPS Act by keeping in his possession
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145981
huge quantity of narcotic pills. The rukka was typed and the
case sent to the police station through PHG Holi Ram 30780.
The file number be intimated after registration of FIR and the
competent authority should be informed about the further
action."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner was
apprehended on the basis of secret information and the search of the
petitioner was not conducted in the presence of any Gazetted Officer or
before Magistrate nor any independent witness joined. The petitioner has
undergone an actual custody of 02 years 04 months and 03 days and he is
involved in 01 another case, however, he is on bail in that case.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has filed
custody certificate in Court today and the same is taken on record. As per
custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 02
years, 04 months and 03 days and he is involved in 01 another case
however, he is on bail in that case. He on instructions from ASI-Swarn
Singh submits that charges were framed on 03.02.2023 and out of total 17
prosecution witnesses, 05 witnesses have been examined till date. He
further submits that in view of strict rigorous of Section 37 of the NDPS Act
and 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.
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145981
6. Admittedly, the charges were framed on 03.02.2023 and out of
a total of 17 prosecution witnesses, 05 witnesses have been examined till
date. The investigation is complete and the petitioner has undergone an
actual custody of 02 years, 04 months and 03 days and he is involved in 01
another case, however, he is on bail in that case.
7. It would be unjust to keep him behind bars looking at the
condition of the jails which are not conducive for rehabilitation process and
detaining the accused persons in jails would also tantamounts to 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".
8. As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the
petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance has been 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 another case. 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."
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145981
9. 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.
10. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner
shall be established during the course of the trial. The conclusion of the trial
will take a considerable time. Therefore, this Court is of the view that further
incarceration of the petitioner will not serve any purpose.
11. 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
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:145981
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.
12. 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.
13. 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.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
08.11.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
