1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section 483
BNSS, 2023 seeking the concession of grant of regular bail for the petitioner in
FIR No.113 dated 05.09.2024 under Sections 22,27,29 of NDPS Act, registered at
2. The Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
" At thìa time it is registered that one ruga from SI Ajit Kaur
120/PR PS City Samana has been received in the PS by hand er
Husanpreet Singh 199/PTL for the registration of case against
Paramjic Kaur wife of Karamjit Singh and Maninder Singh Binder
son of Amar Singh residents of Muradpura, PS City Samana,
District Patiala, under section 22/61/85 NDPS ACT, The contents
of ruqa are: "To, the SHO PS City Samana, Jai Hind, Sir, today I
SI along with ASI Rajvir Singh no.. ASI Beant Singh no. 422/PTL.
HC Pardeep Singh no. 439/PTL, NC Gagandeep singh no.
2025.02.11 07:17 3303/PTL, L/HC Jaspreet Kaur 3381/PTL, CT Husanpreet Singh
no. 199/PTL in private vehicle having laptop and printer along
were present in the revenue limits of Kachhi Puli (temporary
bridge), near Aggarsen Chowk, Samana in relation to patrolling
and checking of suspicious persons and bad elements, meanwhile
it was time around 7:15 PM, a secret informer came present and
informed to I SI that Paramjit Kaur wife of Karamjit Singh
resident of Muradpura aged about 35 years, colour complexion
dusky, built heavy who is wearing Salwar suit and Maninder Singh
Binder son of Amar Singh resident of Muradpura aged about 38
years, colour complexion dusky, built normal, wearing pant-shirt
have reached City Samana from their village on foot to sell
intoxicant tablets. At this time they are coming towards Peer Baba
Chitti Dheri, side lane of minor canal via going through Namdhari
Colony. Samana. If their checking be done then intoxicant tablets
in heavy quantity can be recovered from them. Information is
credible and reliable. On which the secret informer was
discharged thankfully. The act of said Paramjit Kaur, Maninder
Singh Binder son of Amar Singh residents of Village Muradpura by
keeping intoxicant tablets in this manner fulfils the ingredients of
commission of offence under section 22/61/85 NDPS Act.
Therefore I am sending the ruga to PS after getting it typed in
laptop and by taking its printout by hand CT Husanpreet Singh
199/PTL for the registration of case against said Paramjit Kaur
and Maninder Singh Binder under the said offence. Kindly inform
the number of the file after registering the case and inform control
room Patiala. I SI along with fellow policemen am leaving for near
Peer Baba chitti Dheri, Namdhari Colony, Samana after getting
aware them about secret information. In the revenue limits of:
Kachhi Puli (Temporary Bridge), Aggarsen Chowk, Samana, 8:00
PM. "
Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she has been
falsely implicated in the present case and the alleged contraband was not
recovered from her conscious possession and false implication of the petitioner is
MANOJ KUMARonly based in retaliation of written letter dated 11.06.2024 submitted by mother-
in-law of the present petitioner. It is categoric stand taken in the representation
that when the entire family was present at around 8.00 p.m on 10.06.2024, SI Ajit
Kaur and HC Gagan Singh of P.S City Samana forcibly entered into the house and
conducted search while demanding gratification of Rs.30,000/- or she would be
implicated in false case. It is under backdrop of these circumstances that the
petitioner has been allegedly involved in the instant FIR for recovery of 110
intoxicant tablets Etizolam. He further argues that recovered tablets were
allegedly unpacked, lacking manufacturing dates and expiry information, raising
suspicion that she may have been falsely implicated through a planted recovery of
contraband.
On behalf of the State
4. The learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, accepts
notice on behalf of respondent-State and produced custody certificate of the
petitioner according to which, he has suffered incarceration of 05 months and 03
days and challan has been presented on 09.01.2025 and charges are yet to be
framed.
Analysis
5. Be that as it may, considering the facts of the present case and taking
note of the fact that petitioner is already behind bars for the last 05 months and 03
days, challan stands presented on 09.01.2025 and total 17 PWs are cited and
charges are yet to be framed, which is suffice for this Court to infer that the
conclusion of trial will take a considerable amount of time for which the petitioner
cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite period. Further, reliance can
be placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court 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
2025.02.11 07:17 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 ReInhuman 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
2025.02.11 07:17
I attest to the accuracy and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC
authenticity of this order
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."
6. 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 as 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.
Decision
7. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner
is hereby directed to be released on regular bail under 483 of BNSS, 2023 on him
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
10.02.2025
manoj
1. Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes /No
2. Whether reportable : Yes /No
