Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jagsir Singh Alias Jagga vs State Of Punjab on 3 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114459
CRM-M-9847
9847-2024
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
203 CRM
CRM-M-9847-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision: 03.09.2024
Jagsir Singh @ Jagga ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr. Jagjit Pal Singh Sarao,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Manipal Singh Atwal, DAG, Punjab.
(through hybrid mode)
***
AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No.
No.11 dated 02.02.2023
registered under Section 15 of NDPS Act (Sections 29 and 31 of NDPS
Act added later on), at Police Station Dirba,, District Sangrur.
2. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was implicated
in the present case based on disclosure statement of co
co-accused Sony
Singh,, from whom the non-commercial
commercial quantity of contraband was
recovered. He has been falsely implicated in the case. No recovery has
been effected from him. Charges were frame
framed on 24.11.2023 and out of
26 prosecution witnesses,
witnesses only one has been examined so far. The
petitioner being behind bars for about 5 months, was granted interim bail
vide order dated 01.03.2024 and has never misused the concession of bail.
He is involved in another case, also on disclosure statement, wherein he is
on bail and has undergone the sentence in one other matter. Reliance is
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114459
CRM-M-9847
9847-2024
placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Maulana Mohd.
others, 2012(2) SCC 382.
Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others
3. Learned State counsel opposes the bail on the ground that the
petitioner is brother-in-law
br law of the main accused and had confessed to the
offence in custody.
custody Hee is however unable to controvert the submissions
made regarding the custody, petitioner being on bail in other case as also
not having misused the concession of interim bail.
4. Heard.
5. Hon'ble The Supreme Court in the case of Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi (supra) had held that, "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."
6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the ccase, in
particular that the petitioner has not misused the concession of bail and no
recovery was effected from him, on bail in other previous case; charges
were framed on 24.11.2023; only one, out of 26 prosecution witnesses
has yet been examined, thus the
the present petition is allowed. The petitioner
is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing fresh
bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate
concerned and subject to his not being required in any other case
case. The
petitioner shall abide by the following conditions:
conditions:-
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:114459
CRM-M-9847
9847-2024
(i) The petitioner will not tamper with the evidence
during the trial.
(ii) The petitioner will not pressurize/ intimidate the
prosecution witnesses.
(iii) The petitioner will appear before the trial Court
on each and every date fixed, unless is exempted
by a specific order of Court.
(iv) The petitioner shall not commit an offence
similar to the offence of which, he is an accused,
or for commission of which he is suspected of.
(v) The petitioner shall not directly or indirectly
coerce, induce, threaten or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so
as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such
facts to the Court or to any police officer or
tamper with the evidence in any manner.
(vi) The petitioner shall not in any manner misuse
his liberty.
(vii) The petitioner shall furnish his address and
mobile number to the Trial Court forthwith and
shall not change the same till the conclusion of
the
he trial and in case for any reason, the petitioner
seeks to change any of the aforesaid, the same
shall be done only with prior intimation to the
learned Trial Court, stating the reason for the
same.
(viii) The petitioner shall not leave the country
withoutut prior permission of the trial Court.
(ix) The trial Court/Duty Magistrate may impose any
other condition, as deemed appropriate while
releasing the petitioner.
7. It is made abundantly clear that in case there is any breach of
the aforesaid conditions, the State shall be at liberty to seek cancellation
of bail as granted to the petitioner by this order.
8. In view of the above, it is clarified that the observation
observations
made herein are limited for the purpose of present proceedings and would
not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case and the trial
would proceed independently of the aforesaid observations.
03.09.2024 ( AMAN CHAUDHARY )
ashok JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
