Punjab-Haryana High Court
Hansraj Alias Bholu vs State Of Haryana on 29 October, 2024
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
233 CRM-M-31180-2024
Date of decision: 29.10.2024
HANSRAJ ALIAS BHOLU
....Petitioner
V/s
STATE OF HARYANA
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr. Manoj Tanwar, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Yuvraj Shandilya, AAG, Haryana.
*****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The petitioner in this second petition is seeking the concession
of bail under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.488 dated
31.12.2022 under Sections 20/29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic
Substances Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Beri, District Jhajjar.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been in custody for close to 02 years having been arrested on
31.12.2022 however till date not even a single prosecution witness out of
the 25 cited has been examined. Hence, the petitioner cannot be made to
languish in jail for an indefinite period moreso when it is the prosecution
which has been seeking adjournments; on a couple of dates even though
bailable warrants were issued to secure the presence of the prosecution
witnesses yet they had failed to appear for getting their evidence recorded.
It has been further argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner is not
involved in any other criminal case much less under a case under the NDPS
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142358
Act which further lends credence to his false implication in the present case
wherein a recovery of 1 Kg. 700 grams of Charas was allegedly affected
from the conductor's side of the vehicle which was being driven by the
petitioner. A prayer has, therefore, been made for enlarging the petitioner
on bail subject to any stringent conditions, as there is no likelihood of the
trial concluding in the near future. Learned counsel for hte petitioner
places reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (SLP(Crl.)
No.6690/2022) decided on 25.01.2023.
3. Per contra, learned State counsel, while opposing the prayer
and submissions made by the counsel opposite, has not disputed the
custody period of the petitioner and even the stage of trial. However, it has
been submitted by the learned State counsel that a secret information was
received qua the involvement of the petitioner in drugs smuggling.
Thereafter, on being apprehended, the aforesaid recovery i.e.1 Kg. 700
gms. of Charas was affected from the conductor's side of the vehicle
which was being driven by none other than the petitioner, which is higher
than the minimum classified as commercial i.e.1 Kg. under the NDPS Act.
Learned State counsel on further instructions has also not disputed that the
case has been adjourned by the trial Court on some of the dates on account
of the non-appearances of the prosecution witnesses even though they had
been summoned by way of bailable warrants.
On a further query, learned State counsel has not disputed, on
instructions that the petitioner has no previous criminal antecedents.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142358
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant material placed on record.
5. The alleged recovery was affected on 31.12.2022 when the
petitioner was also arrested; thereafter challan was presented on 19.12.2023
followed by framing of charges on 06.04.2024. It is, thus, obvious that the
trial has been proceeding at a very slow pace, coupled with the fact that it
has now been prolonged on account of reasons attributable not to the
petitioner but to the prosecution and prosecution alone. The next date fixed
before the trial Court is 12.11.2024 when some of the prosecution
witnesses are likely to be examined.
6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dheeraj Kumar Shukla Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh (SLP(Crl.) No.6690/2022) decided on 25.01.2023 has
observed as under:-
".... It is true that the quantity recovered from the
petitioner is commercial in nature and the provisions
of Section 37 of the Act may ordinarily be attracted.
However, in the absence of criminal antecedents and
the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two
and a half years, we are satisfied that the conditions of
Section 37 of the Act can be dispensed with at this
stage, more so when the trial is yet to commence
though the charges have been framed."
7. In the facts and circumstances as enumerated hereinabove, this
Court deems it fit to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner.
8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner
be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned. However, it is made clear that
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142358
anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
9. Needless to add, in case the petitioner misuses the concession
of bail granted to him, the State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of
the same.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
October 29, 2024 JUDGE
poonam
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
4 of 4
