Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jatinder Kumar @ Kak vs State Of Punjab on 29 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142296
CRM-M-38406-2024 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Sr. No.226 CRM-M-38406-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 29.10.2024
Jatinder Kumar @ Kaka ..... Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present: Mr. Anosh Samson, Advocate for
Mr. G.K. Tiwari, 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.85
dated 24.03.2024, under Sections 21/29-61-85 of NDPS Act, 1985,
registered at Police Station Civil Lines Batala, Batala, District Gurdaspur.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that
allegedly 20 grams of heroin was recovered from the petitioner which is
non-commercial quantity. He further submits that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in this case and there is non-compliance of Section
50 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 07
months and 03 days and he is involved in 03 other cases under the NDPS
Act, however, all cases relates to non-commercial quantity.
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
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142296
custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone an actual custody of 07
months and 03 days and he is involved in 03 other cases under the NDPS
Act, however, all cases relates to non-commercial quantity. He on
instructions from the concerned police official submits that challan was
presented on 11.06.2024 and charges are yet to be framed and out of total 11
prosecution witnesses, none witness has been examined till date. He
however, submits that in view of serious allegations against the petitioner, he
is not entitled to the concession of bail.
4. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the
parties.
5. Admittedly, the challan was presented on 11.06.2024 and
charges are yet to be framed and out of a total of 11 prosecution witnesses,
none witness has been examined till date. The recovery made by petitioner is
of non-commercial quantity. The petitioner has undergone an actual custody
of 07 months and 03 days and he is involved in 03 other cases under the
NDPS Act, however, all cases relates to non-commercial quantity.
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".
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
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142296
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.
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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142296
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.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
29.10.2024
Ramandeep Singh
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
