Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhjinder Singh Alias Chhotu vs State Of Punjab on 27 January, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011539
CRM-M-3390-2025 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
228-2
CRM-M-3390-2025
DATE OF DECISION: 27.01.2025
SUKHJINDER SINGH ALIAS CHHOTU
...PETITIONER
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB ... RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. Hitesh Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Rajiv Verma, DAG, Punjab.
***
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief Sought
This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for
Grant of Regular Bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 06 Dated 23.02.2024
Under Section 21(b), 27-A, 29 of NDPS Act and 25-27 of Arms Act, 1959
Registered at Police Station Tibber Tehsil and District Gurdaspur
(Annexure P-1).
2. Prosecution story set up in the present case as per the version
in the FIR reads as under :-
'SHO, Police Station Tibber. Jai Hind. Today, myself/ASI
along with ASI Mohinder Pal 122, ASI Gurnam Singh 1294, ASI
Jodh Singh 338, HC Admin Masih 816; PHG Dharam Singh 584
along with laptop, printer, investigation kit, in connection with
search for bad elements, during barricading was present on Ainjla
byepass, then, four young non-sikh persons, occupying one Maruti
1 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011539
800 car bearing no. PB06E5788 of white colour, were going from
Babri byepass towards the side of Pathankot, who, on seeing the
police party, abruptly tried to take U-turn and the person sitting
towards driver side, while tried to flee away by opening the
window of the car and while throwing a polythene envelope being
carried in his right hand, along with other occupants of the car
were nabbed with the help of fellow officials. Myself/ASI, after
disclosing my name, rank and posting to the aforesaid persons,
asked them about their names and addresses, upon which the
person holding polythene envelope disclosed his name as Navjot
Singh son of Balbir Singh resident of Bhagwal, Police Station Qila
Lal Singh, District Gurdaspur; car driver disclosed his name as
Sukhjinder Singh alias Chhotu son of Gulzar Singh, resident of
Kaler Kalan, Police Station Sekhwan, District Gurdaspur; person
seated on rear seat towards left side disclosed his name as Jaspreet
Singh alias Jass, resident of Bhagowal, Police Station Qila Lal
Singh, District Gurdaspur, and the person sitting on rear right side
of car disclosed his name as Sarwan Singh son ofNarinder Singh,
resident of Kaler Kalan, police station Sekhwan, District
Gurdaspur. Before checking of the polythene envelope being
carried by Navjot Singh in his right hand, myself/ASI tried to join
some public witness by asking about 4/5 passerby public persons,
but, every one expressed his inability and did not join the police
party. On this, in the presence of fellow official, 1, opened the
envelop and on checking of the same, heroin was recovered
therefrom. Myself/ASI asked aforesaid persons that there is
suspicion about availability of other narcotic substance with you.
You are having a legal right that you may get conducted your
search as also search of the car being possessed by you from some
Magistrate or some Gazetted Officer and I can call him on the
spot, who stated that the heroin which was being possessed by you,
the same has already been recovered by you and except this we do
not possess any other narcotic substance and that we have full
faith upon you and you may conduct search of us as also of the car
being possessed by us. On this, consent memo was prepared, which
was witnessed by the witnesses and aforesaid appended persons,
2 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011539
namely, Navjot Singh, Sukhjinder Singh alias Chhotu; Jaspreet
Singh alias Jass and Sarwan Singh appended their respective
signatures. On this, myself/ASI conducted person search of
aforesaid appended persons, namely, Navjot Singh, Sukhjinder
Singh alias Chhotu; Jaspreet Singh alias Jass and Sarwan Singh,
one by one, in accordance with rules but, no other narcotic
substance was recovered from them. While conducting personal
search of Jaspreet Singh alias Jass resident of Bhagowal, Police
Station Qila Lala Singh, District Gurdaspur, from right pocket of
his wearing trouser, a computerized scale was recovered, which
was taken into policepossession vide separate memo and Maruti
800 Car bearing no. PB-06-E- 5788 of white colour was taken into
police possession vide recovery memo. Searnch of Maruti 800 Car
bearing no. PB-06-E-5788 of white colour was conducted, as per
rules and from the dicky of the car one Double Barrel Gun no.
38383-05 along with 15 live cartridges were recovered. I weighted
the recovered heroin with computerized scale and weight of heroin
along with envelope came to be 70 gm, which after putting into a
plastic box, a cloth parcel was prepared and the parcel was sealed,
on the spot, with Balwinder Singh with my own seal bearing
impression BS by affixing 01 seal thereupon and the aforesaid
parcel of case property, vide recovery memo, was taken into police
possession. Sample seal was prepared separately. Seal, after use,
was handed over to ASI Mohinder Pal 1222. Aforesaid appended
persons, namely, Navjot Singh, Sukhjinder Singh alias Chhotu;
Jaspreet Singh alias Jass and Sarwan Singh by retaining in their
possession 70 gm heroin and 01 Double Barrel Gun no. 38383-05
along with 15 live cartridges have committed a crime under
sections 21-B/61/85 of NDPS Act and 25-27-54- 59 of Arms Act,
therefore, present rukka, after scribing, for registration of FIR,
through PHG Dharam Singh 584 is being sent to police station.
After registration of FIR, number of FIR be informed. Special
reports, after issuance, be sent to the higher officers. Information
be conveyed to Control Room. Myself/ASI along with fellow
officials, am busy in investigation on the spot. Sd/- Balwinder
Singh, ASI, P.S. Tibber. Place: within the area of Ainjla Byepass AT
3 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011539
10:55 PM. Dated 23.2.2024. Place: Police Station: By this time,
aforesaid FIR qua aforesaid crime, after registration, copy of FIR
along with original writing, through coming HCare being sent to
ASI, who is busy in investigation on the spot. Special reports, after
issuance, through ASI Kuldeep Singh 889 are being sent to the
higher officers and Area Magistrate Sahib. Information is being
conveyed to Control Room through wireless. Entry Rpat no. 27
dated 23.2.2024'.
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case as nothing has
been recovered from him and the alleged recovery of 70 grams of Heroin
as well as drug money was made from co-accused namely Navjot Singh
and Sharwan Singh. He has argued that the antecedents of the petitioner
are clean, therefore, prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State Counsel appearing on
advance notice, accepts notice on behalf of 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 10 months and 29
days.
Learned State Counsel on instructions from the Investigating
Officer opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail stating that serious
allegations are levelled against him but is not in a position to controvert
the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, from the above discussion, it can be culled
4 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011539
out that the petitioner has already suffered sufficient incarceration i.e. 10
months and 29 days, nothing has been recovered from him, antecedents of
the petitioner are clean, meaning thereby he is not a habitual offender, 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, challan stands presented on 09.08.2024
charges stands framed on 16.10.2024 out of 11 prosecution witnesses,
only 01 PW has been examined so far which is sufficient for this Court to
infer that the conclusion of trial is likely to take considerable time and
therefore, 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
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.
5 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011539
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
6 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011539
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
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
7 of 8
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:011539
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 directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail
and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate,
concerned.
However, it is made clear that anything stated hereinabove
shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the
case.
The petition in the aforesaid terms stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
JUDGE
27.01.2025
anuradha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
8 of 8
