Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pargat Singh vs State Of Punjab on 28 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141103
CRM-M-20849-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.228 CRM-M-20849-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 28.10.2024
Pargat Singh ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. V.K. Kaushal, Advocate for
Mr. Rishu Mahajan, 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.112
dated 10.11.2018, under Sections 22 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police
Station Tarshika, District Amritsar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that it is
alleged that there was a recovery of 60 tablets containing salt Tramadol from
the petitioner which is non-commercial quantity. He further submits that the
petitioner was granted bail on 31.01.2019, however, he absented due to
which, non-bailable warrants were issued against him on 18.11.2021. He
was declared proclaimed offender on 09.01.2023 and re-arrested on
07.07.2023. He submits that it was due to mis-communication that the
petitioner was unable to join the proceedings and subsequently, due to out-
break of corona virus, it resulted in the non-appearance
of the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141103
has been falsely implicated in this case. The petitioner has undergone an
actual custody of 01 year, 06 months and 15 days.
3. 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 01
year, 06 months and 15 days and there is one another case registered against
the petitioner, in which he is on bail. He on instructions from the concerned
police official submits that charges were framed on 15.01.2019 and out of
total 09 prosecution witnesses, 02 witnesses have been examined.
4. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
5. Admittedly, the charges were framed on 15.01.2019 and out of
a total of 09 prosecution witnesses, 02 witnesses have been examined till
date. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 01 year, 06 months
and 15 days and there is one another case registered against him, in which he
is on bail.
6. 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".
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141103
7. 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."
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. 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.
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141103
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
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.
11. 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.
12. 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.
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141103
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
28.10.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
