Charanjeet Kaur Alias Charanjit Kaur vs State Of Haryana
2024 Latest Caselaw 20656 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Charanjeet Kaur Alias Charanjit Kaur vs State Of Haryana on 21 November, 2024

Author: Sandeep Moudgil

Bench: Sandeep Moudgil

                                       Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153092



CRM-M-56979-2024 (O&M)                                                 -1-

219


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                          AT CHANDIGARH

                                         CRM-M-56979-2024 (O&M)
                                         DECIDED ON: 21.11.2024

CHARANJEET KAUR ALIAS CHARANJIT KAUR
                                 ....PETITIONER

                                   VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
                                                     .....RESPONDENT

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL

Present:     Mr. Monty Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Chetan Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

CRM-45287-2024

This is an application for seeking exemption from filing a copy

of Aadhaar Card and identify card.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is

allowed. Exemption sought for is granted.

Application stands disposed of.

1. Relief sought

The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section

483 of BNSS, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.0464,

dated 28.06.2023, under Section 15(C) of NDPS Act and later on added

Section 27-A and 29 of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station City Azad

Nagar, District Hisar.

2. Brief facts of the present case unfolds as under:-

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153092

CRM-M-56979-2024 (O&M) -2-

The accused-applicant 2. Charanjit Kaur alongwith her co-

accused namely Harvinder Singh was found having possession of 52.200

Kg. Poppy husk on 28.06.2023 near Chaudharywas Toll Plaza, District Hisar

in a Swift Car bearing registration No.PB-15F/0958 by the police team

headed by ASI Anup Singh on the basis of a secret information. Accused

Charanjeet Kaur and Harvinder suffered their respective disclosure

statements that they had purchased the contraband from accused Narsi Ram.

Accused Narsi Ram has been arrested on 29.02.2024. After completion of

necessary formalities, police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared

and submitted in the Court.

3. Contentions

On behalf of the petitioner

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is

on better footing than co-accused Harvinder Singh @ Munna, who along

with other co-accused Narsi Ram have been granted the concession of

regular bail by this Court vide orders dated 16.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) and

28.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed in CRM-M-2054-2024 and CRM-M-

52743-2024 respectively. He further contends that nothing has been

recovered from the conscious possession of the present petitioner. It has

been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not a habitual

offender as she is not involved in any other case.

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 recovered

contraband i.e. 52.200 kg of poppy husk is commercial in nature.

                                      2 of 7

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153092



CRM-M-56979-2024 (O&M)                                                 -3-

4.          Analysis

Be that as it may, considering the custody period i.e. 01 year, 04

months and 24 days for which the petitioner has suffered incarceration and

the fact that the petitioner is on better footing than co-accused Harvinder

Singh @ Munna, who along with other co-accused Narsi Ram have been

granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide orders dated

16.10.2024 (Annexure P-2) and 28.10.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed in CRM-

M-2054-2024 and CRM-M-52743-2024 respectively; the petitioner is not a

habitual offender as she is not involved in any other case, as is evident from

custody certificate in addition to the fact that investigation is complete,

challan stands presented to Court on 18.12.2023/19.06.2024, charges have

been framed on 20.12.2024 and out of total 25 prosecution witnesses none

has been examined till date, 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

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153092

CRM-M-56979-2024 (O&M) -4-

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-

                                4 of 7

                                  Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153092



CRM-M-56979-2024 (O&M)                                              -5-

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

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153092

CRM-M-56979-2024 (O&M) -6-

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.

5. DECISION:

In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is

hereby directed to be released on regular bail on her 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.

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:153092

CRM-M-56979-2024 (O&M) -7-

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)
21.11.2024                                            JUDGE
Poonam Negi


Whether speaking/reasoned              Yes/No
Whether reportable                     Yes/No




                                      7 of 7