Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lakshay Dhawan vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116761
203 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42592-2024
Date of decision: 06.09.2024
Lakshay Dhawan ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Mr. Vipul Jindal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, DAG, Punjab.
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (ORAL)
The present petition has been filed under Section 483 BNSS
seeking regular bail in case bearing FIR No.129 dated 20.06.2022 under
Sections 22/25/29/27-A of NDPS Act, registered at Police Station STF, SAS
Nagar (Mohali).
Brief facts of the case as alleged are that on 26.06.2022, police
party headed by ASI Surinder Singh received a secret information that one
Balwinder Singh, who used to supply intoxicant tablets in the area of Amritsar
City, is coming to supply the intoxicant tablets to his customer at Gali No.7,
Shehnai Palace, Majitha Road, Amritsar. On the basis of said information, the
police conducted nakabandi and apprehended accused-Balwinder Singh @
Kala. On conducting search in accordance with law, 15000 intoxicant tablets
were recovered from him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case and he has not been
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116761
apprehended at the spot and he has been involved in this case on the basis of
disclosure statement made by Anil Kumar and, thereafter, the contraband was
planted upon the petitioner. It is further submitted that the main accused who
was apprehended at the spot and named in the FIR, namely, Balwinder Singh @
Balwinder Kumar @ Kala has been granted the concession of regular bail by
this Court vide order dated 06.08.2024 passed in CRM-M-36751-2024 titled as
'Balwinder Singh alias Balwinder Kumar alias Kala Vs. State of Punjab'
(Annexure P-20). Further, identically placed co-accused, namely, Parshant
Soni was granted the concession of regular bail by this Court vide order dated
27.08.2024 passed in CRM-M-40161-2024 titled as 'Parshant Soni Vs. State of
Punjab.' He further submits that the petitioner has been in custody for the last
more than two years and the prosecution has failed to examine even a single
witness in the last two years and conclude its evidence and the delay in trial
would violate his fundamental right enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
The learned State counsel has filed custody certificate in the Court
today which is taken on record and per contra, on instructions from ASI
Surinder Kumar, opposes the grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the
ground that a huge quantity of more than 2,00,000 tablets was recovered along
with Rs.10,000/- pursuant to the disclosure statement made by the petitioner.
However, he could not controvert the fact that the petitioner is not involved in
any other case and similarly situated co-accused have already been granted
concession of regular bail by this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the
record of the case, it transpires that the petitioner is behind the bars for 02 years
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116761
02 months and 01 day as on 05.09.2024. Investigation is complete. The final
report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was presented before the concerned Court and
trial of the case has not made much progress as out of 22 prosecution witnesses,
none has been examined so far. The culpability, if any, would be determined at
the time of trial. No useful purpose shall be served by further detention of the
accused/petitioner. Keeping the petitioner in further detention without the
prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future, would be violative of
his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The foundational concept of the criminal jurisprudence is to ensure
speedy trial. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated that right to
speedy trial is enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Speedy trial
would cover investigation, enquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial etc. i.e.
everything starting with the accusation against the accused and expiring with
the final verdict of the last Court.
It has further been held in law that if a person is deprived of his
liberty under a procedure which is not reasonable, fair, or just, such deprivation
would be violative of his fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution
of India. The procedure so prescribed must ensure speedy trial for
determination of the guilt of such person. Some amount of denial of personal
liberty cannot be avoided, but if the period of deprivation pending trial becomes
excessively long, the fairness guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of
India would come into play.
In this regard, reference is being made to the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of right to speedy trial under Article 21
of the Constitution of India on the following decision:- Akhtari Bi Vs. State of
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:116761
M.P., (2001) 4 SCC 355, Surinder Singh Alias Shingara Singh vs. State of
Punjab, (2005) SCC (Crl) 1674, P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka,
(2002) 4 SCC 578, Babu Singh and others vs. State of U.P., (1978) 1 SCC
579, Takht Singh and others vs. State of M.P., (2001) 10 SCC 463; Special
Leave to Appeal (Crl) No.2356 of 2010, Kushal Singh vs. State of U.P. (2JJ.)
and Fazal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 752.
Ergo, I am inclined to allow the prayer of the petitioner in view of
the discussion above as well as the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in 'Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain Vs. State (NCT of Delhi)' 2023 SCC
Online SC 352. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner-
Lakshay Dhawan is ordered to be released on regular bail during trial on his
furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned Illaqa
Magistrate/Trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
The present petition seeking regular bail to the petitioner is
allowed solely on the ground of long custody already undergone by him and
without commenting on the merits of the case lest it may prejudice the outcome
of the case pending before the trial Court.
Nothing observed hereinabove shall be construed to be an
expression of opinion by this Court lest it may prejudice the trial. The learned
trial Court is directed to proceed with the trial on its own merits, strictly in
accordance with law.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
JUDGE
06.09.2024
Neha
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
