Punjab-Haryana High Court
Simranjit Singh Alias Sabhi vs State Of Punjab on 23 September, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
215
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-46388-2024
Date of Decision: September 23, 2024
SIMRANJIT SINGH ALIAS SABHI
....Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate with
Mr. Amit Kumar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Jaspal Singh Guru, AAG, Punjab.
****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J.(ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been
invoked seeking the concession of grant of regular bail for the petitioner in FIR
No.104 dated 08.04.2024, under Sections 21, 29, 61, 85, 27-A of NDPS Act
registered at Police Station Civil Lines Batala Tehsil District Gurdaspur
(Annexure P-1).
2. The prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
narrated in the instant FIR reads as under :-
'Statement of LR/ASI Gurdeep Singh 3098 CIA staff, Batala.
Stated that I am posted in CIA Batala. Today, myself along with ASI
Hem Singh no. 2625, ASI Ramesh Chander 75/832; Const. Suraj, on
private vehicle/car, in connection with patrolling and search for bad
elements was present on T-Point turn Dubbiwal, New Sant Nagar and
then, one non- sikh young boy was seen coming, on foot, from the side of
Pundar, who, on seeing the police party, abruptly became perplexed,
tried to take U-turn and he, while throwing the transparent polythene
with weight therein being carried by him in his right right, was
apprehended by myself/ASI with the help of fellow officials and asked
him about his name and address and he disclosed his name as Simranjit
Singh alias Sabi son of Bhagat Singh, resident of Mayawali gali, Staff
road, Murgi Mohalla, Batala, whom I asked as to what contains in
transparent polythene with weight therein and he disclosed that envelope
contains heroin. Myself/ASI being of local rank, am not competent to
investigate the case involving NDPS Act and thus, MHC Gurwant was
telephonically asked to send regular NGO on the spot for conducting the
further proceedings, upon which you have come to the spot.
Apprehended young boy along with transparent polythene envelope with
weight therein has been produced before you and proceedings may be
done. Statement has been got recorded; heard and it is correct. Sd/-
Gurdeep Singh, ASI. Attested Jatinder Pal, ASI, Police Station Civil
Lines, Batala, dated 08.04.2024. Police Proceeding: Today, myself ASI
was present in police station, then, MHC Gurwant Singh disclosed me
that ASI Gurdeep Singh no. 3098/Batala along with fellow officials,
during patrolling have nabbed a young boy along with one transparent
polythene envelope with weighted therein containing heroin on T-Point
turn, Dubbiwal New Sant Nagar and conduct the proceeding on
reaching the spot, upon which myself/ASI along with LR/ASI Manjit
Singh no. 2883/Batala, PHG Ranjit Singh no. 13325, on private/car,
taking investigation kit and printer-laptop along, reached T-point
Dubbiwal, New Sant Nagar, where ASI/LR Gurdeep Singh no.
3098/Batala along with fellow officials along with apprehended young
boy met and he got recorded his aforesaid startement with me, which,
after scribing was read over and he, after reading his statement,
appended his signatures in Punjabi, below the statement, which was
attested by me. ASI Gurdeep Singh produced the apprehended young boy
along with polythene envelope with weight therein before me. Myself/ASI
after asking the aforesaid young boy about his name and address, before
checking the transparent polythene envelope with weight therein being
carried by him in his right hand, made efforts to join 4/5 public persons
to join in the investigation, but, they became inhabitants of same locality,
no public person had joined the party, upon which, finding no other
option, myself/ASI, in the presence of fellow officials, after explaining my
name, rank, number and posting to aforesaid apprehended Simranjit
Singh alias Sabi, checked the envelope being carried by him in his right
hand, from which heroin was recovered. Myself/ASI asked to aforesaid
apprehended Simranjit Singh alias Sabi that I am suspecting about
availability of other narcotic substance with you and your search is to be
conducted, but, you have a legal right that you may get conducted your
search from some nearby Magistrate Sahib or G.O's Sahib and I can call
him on the spot or you may be taken to him, upon which aforesaid
apprehended Simranjit Singh alias Sabi stated that the heroine which
was being possessed by me, the same has already been recovered by you
and that I do not possess any other narcotic substance. On this, memo
regarding consent for legal right was prepared which was witnessed by
the witnesses. Personal search of aforesaid apprehended Simranjit Singh
alias Sabi was conducted, as per rules, upon which from left pocket of
his wearing trouser (pant) 52 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.
500/- each and 12 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 200/- each
and 16 currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each, total
amount of Rs. 30,000/-, Indian Currency, was recovered and on asking
about the same, he disclosed that he disclosed that this amount has been
earned by sale of heroin and except this, no other objectionable
substance/article was recovered from him. Heroin already recovered
from aforesaid apprehended Simranjit Singh alias Sabi was weight with
the computerized scale after taking out the same from my investigation
kit and it was found to be 50 gm along with envelope. Recovered heroin
along with polythene envelope after putting into a plastic box, a separate
parcel was prepared and recovered drug money amounting to Rs.
30,000/-/Indian currency after putting into a transparent plastic box, the
top of which was tied with thread/cloth, after preparing a parcel, was
sealed with my seal bearing impression JS and sample seal was
prepared separately, Seal, after use, was handed over to ASI Hem Singh
no. 2625/Batala. Both the parcels were taken into police possession vide
separate memos. Since Simranjit Singh alias Sabi son of Bhagat Singh,
resident of Mayawali gali, Staff road, Murgi Mohalla, Batala by
retaining 50 gm heroin along with polythene envelope in his possession
have committed crime under section 21-61-85 NDPS Act, therefore,
original statement/memo, for getting the FIR registered, through PHG
Ranjit Singh 13325 is being sent to Police Station Civil Lines. After
registration of FIR, number of FIR be informed and information be
conveyed to Control Room through wireless. Special reports, after
issuance, be sent to higher officers. Myself ASI along with fellow
officials, am busy investigation on the spot. Sd/- Jatinder Pal Singh, ASI,
Police Station Civil Lines, Batala. Dated 08.04.2024. Place: within the
area of T-Point Turn Dubbiwal, New Sant Nagar. AT 06:45 PM. Place:
Police Station. By this time, aforesaid statement, on receipt in police
station, aforesaid FIR qua aforesaid crime, after registration, copy of
FIR along with original writing, through coming official, is being sent to
ASI, who is busy in investigation on the spot. Information is being
conveyed to Control room through wireless. Special reports, after
preparation, through ASI Balwinder Singh 2609 are being sent to higher
officers.'
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
The Ld. counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that recovery of 50
grams of heroine was effected from the present petitioner along with sum of
money to the tune of Rs.30,000/- but the said amount cannot be co-related as
drug money. He further submits that there is no other case, pending against the
present petitioner and he is a person of clean antecedents, meaning thereby he
is not a habitual offender.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, the Ld. State Counsel appearing on advance
notice, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State and has filed the
custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. According to
which, the petitioner is behind bars for almost 05 months 10 days.
The Ld. State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail, on ground that the recovery
effected from the present petitioner was in tune to Rs.30,000/- and 50 grams of
heroin. He further informs the Court that in the present FIR, the challan stands
presented on 06.06.2024 and the charges stand framed on 24.07.2024.
4. Analysis
From the above case it can be culled out that investigation is
complete and nothing is to be recovered from the present petitioner, the
recovery effected from the petitioner is the 50 grams of heroin, which is
non-commercial in nature; also the petitioner has already suffered sufficient
period in custody i.e. 05 months 10 days and as per the principle of the criminal
jurisprudence, no one should be considered guilty, till the guilt is proved
beyond reasonable doubt. Whereas in the instant case, the challan stands
presented on 06.06.2024; the charges having been framed on 24.07.2024 and
out of total 09 prosecution witnesses, none have been examined yet, which is
sufficient for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take a
considerable amount of time and detaining the petitioner behind the bars for an
indefinite period would solve no purpose.
Reliance can be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court as
rendered in "Dataram versus State of Uttar Pradesh and another", 2018(2)
R.C.R. (Criminal) 131, wherein it has been held that the grant of bail is a
general rule and putting persons in jail or in prison or in correction home is an
exception. Relevant paras of the said judgment is reproduced as under:-
"2. A fundamental postulate of criminal jurisprudence is the
presumption of innocence, meaning thereby that a person is
believed to be innocent until found guilty. However, there are
instances in our criminal law where a reverse onus has been
placed on an accused with regard to some specific offences but
that is another matter and does not detract from the fundamental
postulate in respect of other offences. Yet another important facet
of our criminal jurisprudence is that the grant of bail is the
general rule and putting a person in jail or in a prison or in a
correction home (whichever expression one may wish to use) is
an exception. Unfortunately, some of these basic principles
appear to have been lost sight of with the result that more and
more persons are being incarcerated and for longer periods. This
does not do any good to our criminal jurisprudence or to our
society.
3. There is no doubt that the grant or denial of bail is entirely the
discretion of the judge considering a case but even so, the
exercise of judicial discretion has been circumscribed by a large
number of decisions rendered by this Court and by every High
Court in the country. Yet, occasionally there is a necessity to
introspect whether denying bail to an accused person is the right
thing to do on the facts and in the circumstances of a case.
4. While so introspecting, among the factors that need to be
considered is whether the accused was arrested during
investigations when that person perhaps has the best opportunity
to tamper with the evidence or influence witnesses. If the
investigating officer does not find it necessary to arrest an
accused person during investigations, a strong case should be
made out for placing that person in judicial custody after a
charge sheet is filed. Similarly, it is important to ascertain
whether the accused was participating in the investigations to the
satisfaction of the investigating officer and was not absconding or
not appearing when required by the investigating officer. Surely,
if an accused is not hiding from the investigating officer or is
hiding due to some genuine and expressed fear of being
victimised, it would be a factor that a judge would need to
consider in an appropriate case. It is also necessary for the judge
to consider whether the accused is a first-time offender or has
been accused of other offences and if so, the nature of such
offences and his or her general conduct. The poverty or the
deemed indigent status of an accused is also an extremely
important factor and even Parliament has taken notice of it by
incorporating an Explanation to section 436 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. An equally soft approach to
incarceration has been taken by Parliament by inserting section
436A in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
5. To put it shortly, a humane attitude is required to be adopted
by a judge, while dealing with an application for remanding a
suspect or an accused person to police custody or judicial
custody. There are several reasons for this including maintaining
the dignity of an accused person, howsoever poor that person
might be, the requirements of Article 21 of the Constitution and
the fact that there is enormous overcrowding in prisons, leading
to social and other problems as noticed by this Court in In Re-
Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons, 2017(4) RCR (Criminal)
416: 2017(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 408 : (2017) 10
SCC 658
6. The historical background of the provision for bail has been
elaborately and lucidly explained in a recent decision delivered in
Nikesh Tara chand Shah v. Union of India, 2017 (13) SCALE 609
going back to the days of the Magna Carta. In that decision,
reference was made to Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab,
(1980) 2 SCC 565 in which it is observed that it was held way
back in Nagendra v. King-Emperor, AIR 1924 Calcutta 476 that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. Reference was also
made to Emperor v. Hutchinson, AIR 1931 Allahabad 356
wherein it was observed that grant of bail is the rule and refusal
is the exception. The provision for bail is therefore age-old and
the liberal interpretation to the provision for bail is almost a
century old, going back to colonial days.
7. However, we should not be understood to mean that bail
should be granted in every case. The grant or refusal of bail is
entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and
though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised
judiciously and in a humane manner and compassionately. Also,
conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be
incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail
illusory."
Therefore, to elucidate further, this Court is conscious of the
basic and fundamental principle of law that right to speedy trial is a part of
reasonable, fair and just procedure enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India. This constitutional right cannot be denied to the accused
as is the mandate of the Apex court in "Hussainara Khatoon and ors (IV) v.
Home Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna", (1980) 1 SCC 98. Besides this,
reference can be drawn upon that the pre-conviction period of the under-trials
should be as short as possible keeping in view the nature of accusation and the
severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting
evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or
apprehension of threat to the complainant.
5. Decision:
In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the
petitioner is hereby directed to be released on regular bail under Section 439
Cr.P.C. on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial
Court/Duty Magistrate, concerned.
In the afore-said terms, the present petition is hereby allowed.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
23.09.2024
Sangeeta
Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
