Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rachhpal Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140105
CRM-M-51794-2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
226 CRM-M-51794-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 24.10.2024
RACHHPAL SINGH ...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr.Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. J.S. Rattu, 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.128 dated
30.06.2022, under Section 15 of NDPS Act (lateron added offence U/s 25
of NDPS Act), P.S. City Samana, Distt. Patiala.
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR read as under :-
'This time it is entered that ruqa from INSP/SHO Bhagwant
Singh 419/PR P.S. City Samana against Boota Singh son of Bakha
Singh resident of Ajimgarh, P.S. Guhla, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana),
Sukbir Singh @ Sukhi son of Gurjant Singh resident of Badanpur,
P.S. City Samana, Sonu Mobile No.9855132018 resident of Binder
Colony, near Sai Mandir Samana u/s 15/61/85 NDPS Act by hand
through C. Harbans Singh 2043/PTL received in the police station
for registration of case. The contents of the same are as under:-
Officer Incharge P.S. City Samana. Jai Hind. Today I Inspector
along with ASI Puran Singh No.691/PTL, HC Dharminder Singh
1660/PTL, HC Gurpreet Singh 413/PTL Senior CT Jagdeep Singh
2989/PTL, C. Harbans Singh 2043/PTL10 on govt. vehicle
No.PB11CF-3801 whose driver is ASI Jhirmal Singh 2303/PTL, in
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140105
CRM-M-51794-2024
connection with patrolling and checking of suspicions persons
along with police party were present at Baba Banda Singh
Bahadur Chowk Samana. Then Special Informer came to me and
gave information separately that Boota Singh son of Bakha Singh
village Ajimgarh, P.S. Guhla, Distt. Kaithal (Haryana) and Sukhbir
Singh @ Sukhi son of Gurjant Singh resident of Badanpur, P.S.
Sadar Samana in connivance with Sonu Mob. No.9855132018
resident of Bhinder Colony near Sai Mandir Samana are doing
business of selling poppy husk. They after purchasing huge
quantity of poppy husk from Madhya Pradesh in cheaper rates and
bring the same in his own truck No.PB11AQ-9485, sell the same in
Samana City and other nearby villages. Today also they are
coming to Samana after bringing huge quantity of poppy husk in
their truck. If nakabandi is held then they can be apprehended.
Information is solid and informer is reliable. Above said Boota
Singh, Sukhbir Singh @ Sukhi and Sonu by keeping poppy husk in
their possession and selling the same, fulfills the ingredients of
Section 15/61/85 of NDPS Act. So by writing ruqa against Boota
Singh, Sukhbir Singh @ Sukhi and Sonu above said, same is being
sent to police station by hand through C. Harbans Singh 2043/PTL
for registration of case. Case number be intimated after
registration of case. Higher officers be informed. I Inspector along
with fellow officials am present at Nakabandi. In the area of Baba
Banda Singh Bahadur Chowk, Samana at 4.30 p.m. Sd/ Bhagwant
Singh Inspector, SHO P.S. City Samana dated 30.6.2022.'
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 he was even
not named in the present FIR. He submits that the petitioner was not
arrested at the spot and nothing was recovered from him. He further
submits that co-accused Sukhbir Singh @ Sukhi and Boota Singh who
were arrested from the spot at the time of alleged recovery i.e. 240 kg.
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140105
CRM-M-51794-2024
Poppy husk, have been granted concession of regular bail by this Court
vide order dated 21.05.2024 and 02.07.2024 passed in CRM-M-15450-
2024 and CRM-M-29100-2024. He submits that no fruitful purpose
would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars as conclusion
of trial would take long time as out of total 16 Prosecution Witnesses,
none has 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, 2 months and
13 days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that petitioner
is also involved in another cases also, meaning thereby he is a habitual
offender 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 15.09.2023 and charges stands framed on
16.04.2024.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the facts that the petitioner
has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 1 year, 2 months and 13
days, similarly situated co-accused who were arrested at the spot at the
time of alleged recovery was effected have already been granted
concession of regular bail by this Court, 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
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140105
CRM-M-51794-2024
presented on 15.09.2023 and charges stands framed on 16.04.2024, out of
16 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined so far which is
sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take
considerable time, therefore, detaining the petitioner behind the bars for
an indefinite period would solve no purpose.
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 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140105
CRM-M-51794-2024
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-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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140105
CRM-M-51794-2024
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 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
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:140105
CRM-M-51794-2024
"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
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/her 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
24.10.2024
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
7 of 7
