Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amarbir Singh Alias Amna vs State Of Punjab on 22 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009620
CRM-M-2245-2025 - 1-
224 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-2245-2025
DECIDED ON: 22.01.2025
AMARBIR SINGH @ AMNA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF PUNJAB
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL.
Present: Mr. Narinder Lucky, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. J.S. Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been
invoked seeking regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 149, dated 14.11.2022,
under Sections 21 & 22 of NDPS Act, 1985, registered at Police Station Lohian,
District Jalandhar (Rural).
2. Facts
The facts as narrated in the FIR reads as under:-
"To SHO, PS Lohian, Today, I, ASI and ASI, Avtar Singh/ 179, S/CT
Ramandeep Singh/1310, S/CT Harjinder Singh/ 1268, S/CT Harjeet
Singh/1151 were in a Government Vehicle Bolero Camper having
registration No.PB-08-DS-0859, whose driver is S/CT Lovedeep
Singh/1312, alongwith printer and laptop and were present near T-
Point, Lohian regarding search of anti social elements. I, ASI got
secret information that Sulakhan Singh @ Sulkhan S/O Joga Singh,
R/O Village Makhi, PS Lohian and Amarbir Singh @ Amna@ Amna
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009620
CRM-M-2245-2025 - 2-
S/O Balwinder Singh, R/O Kakar Kalan, PS Lohian, were coming on
their motorcycle and Jatinderjeet Singh @ Jeetu S/O Avtar Singh,
R/O Kakar Kalan, PS Lohian, were coming on his Black color Activa
and Gurnam Singh @ Raja S/O Gurdeep Singh R/O Shahjahanpur,
PS Sultanpur Lodhi, Gurpreet Singh @ Gora S/O Jinder, R/O
Latiawal, PS Sultanpur Lodhi, were coming on their Platina
Motorcycle from Tajpur to Lohian side, and they were having
Intoxicant Capsules, Intoxicant Tablets, Heroine and Intoxicant
Substance, which they were carrying to sell to customers on Lohian
Kasba side. If naka is laid and strict checking is done then they can
be apprehended with large amount of Intoxicant Substance, Tablets,
Capsules, Heroine. Finding Information reliable and authentic,
offence found to be committed under section 21/22/61/85, NDPS Act.
Rukka was scribed and the same is sent to police station for
registration of FIR through S/CT Ramandeep Singh/ 1310 and FIR
number may be intimated. Special reports be prepared and sent to
District Magistrate and Senior Officers. Control room may be
intimated through wireless. I, ASI, alongwith co-employees, going
towards the place as disclosed by secret informer. Sd/-Jaspal Singh,
ASI, PS Lohian, Dated 14.11.2022."
3. Contentions:
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the quantity of
contraband i.e., 40 intoxicant tablets allegedly recovered from the petitioner
having 'Tramadol Hydrochloride" salt that falls under the category of non-
commercial. The petitioner is in custody since 14.11.2022 and the allegations
against him are a matter of evidence and the same is yet to be proved.
On behalf of the State
Learned State counsel has filed the custody certificate of the
petitioner, which is taken on record. He prays for dismissal of the present petition
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009620
CRM-M-2245-2025 - 3-
on the ground that the petitioner is involved in other cases also meaning thereby,
he is a habitual offender.
4. Analysis
Considering the custody period already suffered by the petitioner i.e.,
2 years 2 months and 6 days, as is evident from the perusal of the custody
certificate and quantity of contraband i.e. 40 intoxicating capsules containing
26.78 grams of "Tramadol Hydrochloride", fall under non-commercial added with
the fact that after framing of charges on 07.10.2023, out of total 14 prosecution
witnesses only one has been examined so far, meaning thereby, conclusion of trial
shall take considerable time, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the
petitioner behind the bars for an indefinite period, which would curtail his right for
speedy trial and expeditious disposal, as enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India as has been time and again discussed by this Court, while
relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Dataram Singh vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2018(2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 131. 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 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009620
CRM-M-2245-2025 - 4-
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
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009620
CRM-M-2245-2025 - 5-
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
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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009620
CRM-M-2245-2025 - 6-
and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
As far as the pendency of other cases and involvement of the
petitioner in other cases is concerned, reliance can be placed upon the order of this
Court rendered in CRM-M-25914-2022 titled as "Baljinder Singh alias Rock vs.
State of Punjab" decided on 02.03.2023, wherein, while referring Article 21 of
the Constitution of India, this Court has held that no doubt, at the time of granting
bail, the criminal antecedents of the petitioner are to be looked into but at the same
time it is equally true that the appreciation of evidence during the course of trial
has to be looked into with reference to the evidence in that case alone and not with
respect to the evidence in the other pending cases. In such eventuality, strict
adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other
cases/convictions in all probability would lend the petitioner in a situation of
denial the concession of bail.
5. DECISION:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is hereby
directed to be released on regular bail subject to 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)
22.01.2025 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
6 of 6
