Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sumit Alias Sonu vs State Of Haryana on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037817
CRM-M-12361-2025 -1-
241 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-12361-2025
DECIDED ON: 19.03.2025
SUMIT @ SONU
....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. P.S. Sekhon, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Pannu, Addl. AG Haryana
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The Jurisdiction Of This Court Has Been Invoked Under
Section Under Section 439 Cr. P.C. (483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita 2023) for grant of regular bail to the petitioner FIR No. 212 dated
30.07.2024 under section 22-C and 27-A of NDPS Act 1985, PS city Ratia
district Fatehabad till the decision of the case.
2. Brief facts of the present case as per the version in the FIR as
under:-
"As per the prosecution case, on 30.07.2024, a police party
headed by ASI Major Singh, on the basis of secret information,
apprehended co-accused Sujeet Singh son of Surajbhan and
recovery of 44 strips (each containing 10 tablets i.e. total 440
tablets) of Etizolam, weighing 115 grams was effected from him,
in the presence of Sh. Kishan Lal Verma, AETO, Fatehabad.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037817
The recovered contraband was taken into police possession in
accordance with law. On this, present case was registered.
During investigation, co-accused Sujeet Singh son of Surajbhan
was arrested, who suffered disclosure statement regarding his
involvement in the crime as well as purchasing the recovered
contraband from applicant-accused Sumit @ Sonu son of
Subhash Chand and accordingly Section 27-A of the Act was
added."
3. Contentions
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of disclosure
statement of co-accused Sujeet Singh and no recovery of contraband has
been effected from the possession of the petitioner. He further submits that
the antecedents of the petitioner are clean, as he is not involved in any other
case. Moreover during investigation no incriminating material has put forth
to connect the petitioner with the recovery of alleged contraband, as alleged
in the FIR.
On behalf of the State
On the other hand, learned State counsel has produced the
custody certificate of the petitioner today in Court, which is taken on record.
He seeks dismissal of the instant petition on the ground that out of total 440
tablets of Etizolam, 300 tablets were sold by one Vineet Kumar, who is
proprietor of Firm M/s L.D. Heath Care Cenre, Jind against proper bill to the
firm in the name of M/s Sonu Medical Hall, Kithana, District Kaithal, which
is a medical shop run by the father of the petitioner.
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037817
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, considering the fact no recovery of contrband
was effected from the conscious possession of the petitioner and except
disclosure no incriminating material has been put forth by the State to
connect the petitioner with the alleged contraband added with the fact that
antecedents of the petitioner are clean and challan stands presented on
24.01.2025, wherein the prosecution has cited 30 prosecution witnesses,
which remains to be examined, as charges are yet to be framed, which is
suffice for this Court to infer that the conclusion of trial will take long time
for which the petitioner cannot be detained behind the bars for an indefinite
period.
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
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037817
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 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.
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037817
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 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
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:037817
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 and the
nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with
the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant.
5. Relief:
In view of the discussions made hereinabove, the petitioner is
hereby directed to be released on regular bail on 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)
19.03.2025 JUDGE
sham
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
