Thursday, 21, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab
2024 Latest Caselaw 17749 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 17749 P&H
Judgement Date : 24 September, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Balwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 24 September, 2024

Author: Kirti Singh

Bench: Kirti Singh

           CRM-M-46565-2024                                                                      1

           232
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH



                                                                     CRM-M-46565-2024
                                                                     Decided on : 24.09.2024

           BALWINDER SINGH
                                                                                          . . . Petitioner

                                                         Versus
            STATE OF PUNJAB
                                                                                       . . . Respondent

           CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH
           Present:            Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate
                               for the petitioner(s).

                               Mr. Randhir Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.

                                                          ****
           KIRTI SINGH, J. (Oral)

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner

in case FIR No.86 dated 22.06.2024, registered under Sections 15, 61 and 85 of

NDPS Act, at Police Station Passiana, District Patiala.

2. The brief facts of the present case are that on 22.06.2024, the

petitioner was apprehended by the police party with 1 kg 200 grams Poppy Husk

(Dode Chura Post) in his possession.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that the petitioner

has been falsely implicated in this case and even otherwise recovery is of

marginally higher than the small quantity. The petitioner has already undergone an

actual custody of 02 months and 29 days and there are 02 other cases registered

against him. The petitioner was convicted in FIR no. 284, dated 23.10.2007, U/s

12/25 NDPS Act, Police Station Samana, District Patiala to undergo RI for 10

years and fine of Rs. 1 lakh, vide order dated 09.02.2012. The petitioner has

preferred an appeal bearing CRA-S-905-SB-2012 before this Hon'ble Court and

his sentence was suspended vide order dated 03.11.2015 and in FIR no.137, dated

17.06.2021, U/ss 22/61/85 NDPS Act, PS: Passiana wherein 200 intoxicating

tablets (non commercial quantity) was allegedly recovered, the petitioner was

granted bail in the said FIR.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the

submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State counsel

has filed the custody certificate dated 23.09.2024 in Court today, which is taken on

record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner has undergone actual custody

of 02 months and 29 days and there are 02 other cases registered against the

petitioner, however in one case, he is on bail and in other case, his sentence has

been suspended. He further on instructions submits that the challan was presented

on 17.08.2024 and charges are yet to be framed and out of 08 prosecution

witnesses, none has been examined till date. However in view of the serious

allegations against the petitioner, 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 recovery is of 1.2 kg of poppy husk, which is non-

commercial quantity. The challan was presented on 17.08.2024 and charges are yet

to be framed and out of 08 prosecution witnesses, none has been examined till

date. The petitioner has undergone actual custody of 02 months and 29 days and

there are 02 other cases registered against the petitioner, however in one case, he is

on bail and in other case, his sentence has been suspended.. The conclusion of the

KAVITA NAINtrial will take considerable time and further incarceration will not serve any

purpose.

7. As regards the submission of learned State counsel that petitioner is

involved in other criminal cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd.

Amir Rashadi v. State of U.P. and another", 2012(2) SCC 382 has 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 other 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. 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".

9. 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

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.

10. 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.

11. 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)
           24.09.2024                                                                        JUDGE
           Kavita
                                       Whether speaking/reasoned         Yes/No
                                       Whether reportable                Yes/No









 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter