Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh Alias Hathora vs State Of Punjab on 13 January, 2025
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
CRM-M-52082-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(213)
CRM-M-52082-2024
Date of decision:- 13.01.2025
Sukhwinder Singh @ Hathora ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr. Manoj R. Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shiva Khurmi, AAG, Punjab
for State-respondent.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. This is the first petition filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C. seeking
grant of post-arrest bail in:-
FIR Dated Police Station Sections
No.
55 18.03.2019 Civil Lines Batala, District 21/22 of the NDPS Act
Gurdaspur and Sections 379/411
IPC
2. Case of the prosecution is that during routine patrolling, they
came across Sukhwinder Singh @ Hathora riding a scooty in suspicious
circumstances. They followed him and saw that he threw a pink coloured
plastic bag, which he was carrying. The bag contained 405 tablets and on
analysis, tablets were found to contain salt Alprazolam. The total weight of
the recovered contraband was found to be 62 grams.
authenticity of this order/judgment
3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated and the recovery allegedly effected from him was within
the ambit of non-commercial quantity. He submits that although the
petitioner has a criminal past, but the petitioner cannot be kept in detention
indefinitely till the veracity of the allegation is ascertained.
4. Per contra, State counsel, who has filed Custody Certificate
dated 13.01.2025, which is taken on record and has opposed the petition.
He has instructions to state that the petitioner was declared as a proclaimed
offender in September, 2023 and was arrested in April, 2024. He has
expressed an apprehension that in case the petitioner is released on bail, he
is likely to abscond. By referring to the Custody Certificate, State counsel
submits that the petitioner is involved in number of criminal cases and
some of them have been registered against him for offences under the
NDPS Act.
5. I have heard counsel for the parties and considered their
respective submissions.
6. Undisputedly, the recovery effected from the petitioner is non-
commercial and bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act is not applicable.
Petitioner has remained in confinement for the last almost ten months and
charge has not been framed. This Court has been informed that out of 14
prosecution witnesses, none has been examined. This Court is, therefore, of
the view that the petition deserves to be accepted, though some conditions
should be imposed upon the petitioner.
authenticity of this order/judgment
7. Accordingly, without adverting to the merits or demerits of the
arguments addressed, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be
released on bail on furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction
of the Area Magistrate/Duty Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.
8. While on bail, petitioner shall report to the I.O./SHO of the
concerned police station in the forenoon on the first Monday of every
month. He will also keep the officer apprised of his movements and file an
undertaking by way of an affidavit that henceforth he will not indulge in
any criminal activity. In case, the petitioner violates any of the above
mentioned conditions, State would be at liberty to seek cancellation of bail.
9. Nothing said hereinabove shall be construed to be an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
13.01.2025
Kamal
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
authenticity of this order/judgment
