Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anil Sood And Another vs State Of Haryana on 28 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141211
CRM-M-53875-2023 1
227
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-53875-2023
Date of Decision: 28.10.2024
Anil Sood and another
...Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate with
Mr. M.S. Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG , Haryana.
*****
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 petitioners in case FIR No.409 dated
26.07.2023, under Sections 21, 27A, 29, 61, 85 of NDPS Act, 1985 registered at
Police Station Ambala Cantt., District Ambala, Haryana.
2. The aforementioned FIR has been registered on the basis of secret
information that Dishant Kumar @ DK was indulged in drug smuggling and on
instruction and after taking money from Satyam Chadda, Waris, Lakhan Kumar
and Vicky he is coming from Delhi with huge quantity of smack and if barricading
is done near cremation ground, Jagadhari Road, Ambala Cantt, he can be
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141211
apprehended. Later, Dinesh Kumar was apprehended with 1 Kg 413 gms of
heroin.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have been
falsely implicated in this case and they were nominated only on the basis of
disclosure statement made by the co-accused Dishant Kumar. He further submits
that the petitioner No. 1-Anil Sood has undergone actual custody of 01 year, 01
month and 13 days and one more case is registered against him, in which he is on
bail and petitioner No. 2 - Shivam Sood has also undergone actual custody of 01
year, 01 month and 13 days and no other case has been registered against him
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. As per the
custody certificate, the petitioner No. 1 has undergone actual custody of 01 year,
01 month and 13 days and there is one more case registered against him, however,
he is on bail in that case and petitioner No. 2 has also undergone actual custody of
01 year, 01 month and 13 days and there is no other case registered against him .
He submits that challan was presented on 18.01.2024 and charges were framed on
16.05.2024 and out of 46 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. He,
however, submits that in view of strict rigors of Section 37 of the NDPS Act and
serious allegations against the petitioners, they are not entitled to the concession of
regular bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. The charges were framed on 16.05.2024 and out of total 46
prosecution witness, none has been examined till date. The petitioners have
undergone actual custody of 01 year, 01 month and 13 days. Further detention of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141211
the petitioners 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.
7. 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.
8. The veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioners shall be
established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the charges have been
framed and no prosecution witness has been examined till date. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioners would not serve
any purpose.
9. Without commenting anything on the merits of the case, lest it may
prejudice the trial, the present petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to
be released on regular bail on their furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the
satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. The petitioners
shall also abide by the following conditions:-
(i) The petitioners will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.
(ii) The petitioners will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution
witness(s).
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:141211
(iii) The petitioners will appear before the trial Court on the date
fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.
(iv) The petitioners shall not commit an offence similar to the
offence of which they are accused of, or for commission of which
she is suspected.
(v) The petitioners 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.
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)
28.10.2024 JUDGE
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
