Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhmander Singh vs State Of Punjab on 23 October, 2024
Author: Kirti Singh
Bench: Kirti Singh
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139340
CRM-M-58084-2023 (O&M)
222
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-58084-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 23.10.2024
Sukhmander Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
Present:-. Mr. Arshdeep Singh Brar, 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.34 dated
16.04.2023, under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 1985 (Section 29 of NDPS Act added
later on) registered at Police Station Moga, District Moga.
2. The facts of the present case are that the present FIR was registered by
the police on the allegations that a police party headed by ASI Basant Singh were
perfroming duty at check point barrier on bridge leading to Moga-Ferozepur Road,
in the area of Village Rattian. Meanwhile, a car bearing No.PB-08/BM-8017 was
stopped for checking, on asking driver disclosed his name as Sukhmander Singh
whereas lady sitting on conductor seat disclosed her name as Kirandeep Kaur. On
search of car, three bags each containing 20 kilograms of poppy husk were
recovered.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139340
CRM-M-58084-2023 (O&M)
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that there was no
recovery from the person of the petitioner but from the car and there is non-
compliance of Section 42 of the NDPS Act. The petitioner has been in custody
for 01 year, 06 months and 05 days and there are three other cases registered
against him and he has been acquitted in all three cases. He further submits
similarly situated co-accused has been granted concession of regular bail by
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.09.2023 passed in CRM-M-
45706-2023.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per the custody
certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody of 01 year, 06 months and
05 days and there are three more cases registered against him and he has been
acquitted in all three cases. He, however, submits that there are serious
allegations against the petitioner and he is not entitled to the concession of regular
bail.
5. Heard the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. Admittedly, the charges were framed on 03.10.2023 and out of total
08 prosecution witness, no witness has been examined till date. The petitioner has
undergone actual custody of 01 year, 06 months and 05 days and there are three
more cases registered against him and he has been acquitted in all three cases.
Further detention of the petitioner 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.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139340
CRM-M-58084-2023 (O&M)
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 petitioner shall be
established during the course of the trial. Admittedly, the charges were framed and
three prosecution witness have been examined till date. The petitioner has
undergone actual custody of 01 year, 06 months and 05 days. Therefore, this
Court is of the view that further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any
purpose.
9. This Court is of the view that considering the aforesaid peculiar facts
and circumstances, the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act will not
apply in the present case since there has been no recovery from the person of the
petitioner but from the car. So far as the second ingredient for making a departure
from the bar contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is concerned, it is not
the case of the State counsel that in case the petitioner is released on bail, then he
may repeat the offence or may abscond from justice and therefore, at this stage,
both the ingredients contained under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for making a
departure from the bar contained thereon remain satisfied
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
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:139340
CRM-M-58084-2023 (O&M)
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.
(KIRTI SINGH)
JUDGE
23.10.2024
reena
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
